HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan
Meeting Date: November 28, 2005 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Carolyn Weiss
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-4914
ISSUE STATEMENT
The purpose of this work session is to provide information to the City Council regarding the proposed
Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing on the PROS
Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for December 12, 2005. Following three years of planning and an
extensive public involvement process, the PROS Plan is proposed for adoption as a refinement to the
Metro Plan.
BACKGROUND
The PROS Comprehensive Plan is being presented to the City Council as a refinement to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, to be adopted in compliance with Eugene Code’s Type V
procedures (EC 9.7500 - 9.7560). The proposed ordinance is included with this AIS as Attachment A.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan provides concepts, principles, goals and strategies to guide preservation
and enhancement of Eugene’s parks, recreation and open space system. The PROS Comprehensive Plan
is organized into six chapters, which include: the planning framework; key recommendations that will
guide plan implementation; strategies for how the City will achieve its vision; potential financing
sources for capital and non-capital projects, as well as sources for maintenance; and, measures to
evaluate the success of plan implementation.
The comprehensive planning process that resulted in the PROS Comprehensive Plan began in the
summer of 2002. The comprehensive planning process undertaken by the City includes four phases:
?Identifying community needs;
?Creating and confirming a future vision;
?Developing strategies; and
?Obtaining approval for the plan from the Eugene City Council.
The first three phases are complete and have involved public outreach to thousands of Eugene residents.
A Mayor’s Advisory Committee, made up of eleven community members, provided guidance and
direction throughout the three years of plan development. These community members represent a wide
array of interest areas and geographic distribution throughout the city. Extensive public outreach efforts
have formed the basis of the plan. The following is a sampling of these outreach efforts:
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051128\S051128B.doc
?A statistically valid community survey of 437 households
?A youth questionnaire completed by 647 high school and middle school youth
?A display at the Eugene Celebration, where residents completed 456 questionnaires
?Focus groups with Library, Recreation and Cultural Services (LRCS) staff, maintenance staff,
recreation providers, and representatives from the Eugene business community and from cultural
communities to identify needs and preferences
?A Speakers Bureau with 44 presentations to community groups and organizations. A total of 1085
community members attended, and 751 questionnaires were completed.
?A survey of organized sports providers, with 15 questionnaires returned
?Twelve stakeholder interviews with identified community leaders
?Public meetings of the Mayor’s Advisory Committee and Steering Committee
?A citywide community forum to brainstorm and identify key projects in each of the six planning sub-
areas
?Community forums in each of the six planning sub-areas to review proposed strategies
Updates on the progress of the PROS Comprehensive Plan have been given periodically to the council
throughout the process. The most recent update was in December 2004. At that time, a draft plan was
provided to the council for review. Since then, additional public involvement has been conducted and
plan revisions have been made.
The Planning Commission held a work session on October 10, 2005, and held a public hearing on
October 11, 2005. Written testimony submitted to the Planning Commission is included with this AIS
as Attachment B. Staff prepared written responses to the Planning Commission’s questions and to
comments received during the public hearing. These staff responses are inlcuded as Attachment C.
On November 8, 2005, the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending that the council
approve the PROS Comprehensive Plan with seven amendments. The Planning Commission’s seven
recommended amendments are attached to this AIS as Attachment D. Six of the seven Planning
Commission’s recommended amendments are reflected in the PROS Comprehensive Plan that has been
provided to the council (Exhibit B to Attachment A). The one Planning Commission recommendation
that staff has not made to the PROS Comprehensive Plan is recommended amendment number 3. This
recommended amendment proposes that following change be made to the PROS Comprehensive Plan:
Amend the PROS Comprehensive Plan to include lands owned by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) that were purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund
dollars, and are within the City limits contribute to the City’s open space system. These
lands should be included in the PROS inventory of existing open space resources.
Although inclusion of this acreage may show that the Natural Area Park target is met
through year 2025, other policies may require additional acquisitions within this park
type.
While staff recognizes the intent of the Planning Commission’s recommended amendment is to be
inclusive of all publicly-owned lands that significantly contribute to the recreation and open space
opportunities in Eugene, inclusion of such land is not consistent with public sentiment. By including the
742 acres of property that is owned by the BLM and located inside Eugene’s UGB in the parks and open
space inventory, a surplus of land within the natural area park category would be shown through the year
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051128\S051128B.doc
2025. Showing a surplus of natural area park land is not consistent with the input received from Eugene
residents.
Examples of citizen input regarding natural park land includes:
?According to respondents of a questionnaire distributed at the Eugene Celebration, “purchase more
natural areas” is the top priority for all park and open space improvements.
?In an open-ended question, “providing additional natural areas” was the most frequently mentioned
individual improvement for all parks, open space, and recreation services, according to Speakers
Bureau respondents.
?Natural areas “provide opportunities to enjoy nature/outdoors and protect the natural environment.”
These are two of the top three benefits of parks, recreation, and open space, according to respondents
from the Community Survey, the Eugene Celebration, and the Speaker’s Bureau.
?Eugene needs a “strong open space acquisition program,” according to participants in the Natural
Resource and Open Space Focus Group. They identified priority sites for acquisition to include
Ridgeline sites, farmland, Metro Natural Resource Study sites, the confluence of the Willamette and
McKenzie Rivers, and rare and endangered habitats.
It is staff’s belief that the public recognizes the contribution of BLM property to Eugene’s open space
system, and desires additional natural area parks. The PROS Comprehensive Plan currently shows a
deficit of over 600 acres in the natural area parks category through year 2025, (see Attachment E to this
AIS, Table B-1 from the PROS Comprehensive Plan). This additional acreage is needed to complete
goals such as Ridgeline Trail connectivity and protection of key waterways.
Lastly, the Planning Commission had three additional comments that, while outside the purview of its
specific charge, the Planning Commission wanted communicated to the council. These additional
comments are attached to this AIS as Attachment F.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The PROS Comprehensive Plan will replace the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan, which was adopted
by the City Council in 1989 as a refinement to the Metro Plan.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council is asked to review the PROS Comprehensive Plan and accompanying information.
Following this work session and a public hearing on December 12, 2005, the council will be asked to
adopt the PROS Comprehensive Plan.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends proceeding with the public hearing on December 12, 2005.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to direct the City Manager to proceed with the public hearing on the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Comprehensive Plan on December 12, 2005, with adoption set for December 14, 2005.
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051128\S051128B.doc
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Ordinance Adopting the PROS Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit A to Attachment A, Findings of Consistency
o
Exhibit B to Attachment A, PROS Comprehensive Plan with six of the seven Planning
o
Commission recommended amendments.
B. Public Testimony submitted to the Planning Commission
C. Staff Responses to Comments and Questions from Planning Commission and Public Testimony
D. Planning Commission Recommendations to Council
E. Table showing Parks and Open Space Anticipated Needs
F. Planning Commission Additional Comments
G. Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council regarding PROS Plan adoption process
Note: For additional background information, notebooks containing the minutes of the Parks and Open
Space Mayor’s Advisory Committee, along with other informational documents, are available for review
at the City Manager’s office.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Carolyn Weiss, Parks and Open Space Planning Manager
Telephone: 682-4914
Staff E-Mail: Carolyn.j.weiss@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M051128\S051128B.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW PARKS, RECREATION
AND OPEN SPACE PLAN (“PROS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN”)
AS A REFINEMENT OF THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN; REPEALING
RESOLUTION NO. 4127 AND THE EUGENE PARKS AND
RECREATION PLAN ADOPTED THEREIN; AMENDING
SECTION 9.8010 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; REPEALING
SECTION 9.9550 OF THAT CODE; ADOPTING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
Portions of the current Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan were adopted
by Resolution No. 4127 on July 10, 1989 as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
B.
Since the summer of 2002 the City has been engaged in a comprehensive
planning process to identify future needs for parks, open space and recreation
programs and services. The attached PROS Comprehensive Plan was developed
based on the results of public outreach to thousands of residents of the City through
meetings with neighborhood organizations, and City representatives meeting with
various youth, seniors, adults, people with disabilities and cultural minority interest
groups.
C.
The attached PROS Comprehensive Plan will provide long-range direction
for future strategies and actions to improve parks, provide recreation opportunities, and
protect natural resource values, and will replace the 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation
Plan as a refinement to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan.
D.
On September 15, 2005 the PROS Comprehensive Plan was referred to
the Planning Directors of the City of Springfield and Lane County for review for
consistency with the Metro Plan. Notice of the proposed Plan adoption was delivered
by the City to the Land Conservation and Development Commission on September 2,
2005. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Register
Guard on September 21, 2005.
E.
In addition to the above, the PROS Comprehensive Plan and related
materials have been made available on the internet through the City’s web site.
F.
Based on the public testimony received, and the recommendations of the
City’s Planning Commission, and Planning Division staff, the City Council finds that the
PROS Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Ordinance - 1
General Plan, other adopted City policies, and the Statewide Planning Goals. That
Resolution No. 4127, and the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan adopted therein
should be repealed; the entry for Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan – 1989 in Section
9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971 should be deleted; and Section 9.9550 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, the Eugene Parks and Recreation Policies, should be repealed as
hereinafter set forth.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Resolution No. 4127, and the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan
adopted therein, is hereby repealed, as of the effective date of this Ordinance.
Section 2.
Based on the above findings, and the legislative findings attached
hereto as Exhibit A, which are adopted in support of this Ordinance, the PROS
Comprehensive Plan a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B is hereby adopted
as a refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan. A final copy
of the complete PROS Comprehensive Plan shall be attached to this Ordinance.
Section 3.
Table 9.8010 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is hereby amended by
deleting the “Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan – 1989” entry therefrom,
Section 4.
Section 9.9550 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is repealed.
[9.9550 Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan Policies.
(1) Physical Access.
(a) Provide safe parking at parks and recreational facilities that commonly
draw crowds arriving by both automobiles and bicycles. (Policy 4)
(b) Provide safe and convenient access to parks and recreational facilities
for persons with disabilities. (Policy 5)
(c) When possible, require land divisions and planned unit developments to
provide for pedestrian access to parks and potential park sites. (Policy
6)
(2) Urban Design.
(a) Protect the unique geographical features, buttes, and other natural
landmarks in parks and other recreational facilities for their contribution
to the community’s identity. (Policy 1)
(b) Use the Trees for Eugene street tree planting guide when designing
streetscapes next to and within parks and other recreational facilities.
(Policy 3)
(c) Minimize the impacts of park use on surrounding lands through:
1. Buffering borders shared with residential, commercial, industrial,
and agricultural uses.
2. Expanding sub-standard sized parks, when possible, through
acquisition to improve access, visibility, and aesthetic quality.
3. Careful siting of access roads, parking areas, and activities that
require lighting or produce high noise levels. (Policy 4)]
(d) Treat environmental enhancement as a component of recreational
development. (Policy 5)
(3) Willamette and McKenzie Rivers.
(a) Use the January, 1985, Willamette River Greenway Management
Ordinance - 2
Proposal as a source for identifying natural vegetation and wildlife areas
as well as possible management techniques and specific land use
actions and decisions that will provide a balance among physical access
areas, visual access areas, and areas where access should be limited
or discouraged. (Policy 1)
(b) Preserve and enhance natural habitats and scenic corridors that
deserve special merit along the rivers. (Policy 6)
(c) Assure that developments within the established Willamette River
Greenway boundaries comply with State and local Greenway standards
and regulations. (Policy 7)
(4) South Hills.
(a) Preserve the character and habitat value of the South Hills by siting and
developing recreational facilities and other improvements in a way that
preserves and enhances the natural conditions of the area. (Policy 1)
(b) Manage the South Hills as a passive recreational feature by providing a
variety of recreational facilities, such as trails, view points, and natural
areas, to accommodate a range of interests and activities. (Policy 2)
(c) Extend the Ridgeline Trail System along or near the ridge of the South
Hills and provide linkages to adjacent neighborhoods. (Policy 4)
(5) Delta Ponds.
Develop the Delta Ponds as a major recreational area and
corridor including a variety of recreational and educational opportunities.
(Policy 1)
(6) Amazon Channel.
(a) Develop the channel as a major recreational corridor by providing a
variety of recreational facilities along its length. (Policy 1)
(b) Provide access to the channel from adjacent neighborhoods. (Policy 3)
(c) Where channel street crossings are absent, install foot bridges that are
sensitive to wildlife for convenient access to recreational areas. (Policy
4)
(d) Improve the safety and aesthetic quality of the channel corridor to
encourage its use and contribute to its beautification. (Policy 6)
(7) Millrace and Other Waterways and Drainageways.
(a) Maintain and enhance the character and recreational opportunities of
the Millrace. (Policy 1)
(b) Protect natural stream courses, sloughs, and wetlands in connection
with parks and recreational facilities. (Policy 3)]
Section 5.
The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the
City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained
herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added,
amended or repealed herein.
Section 6.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Section 7.
Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the
Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of
its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its
acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later.
Ordinance - 3
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of ____________, 2005 ____ day of _____________, 2005
_______________________________ _______________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance - 4
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___
Adoption of New Refinement Plan The following criteria are applicable to the adoption of
a new refinement plan.
(1) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the Statewide planning goals.
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and sets out requirements for such
1
involvement. The action taken to adopt this ordinance did not amend the citizen involvement
program.
Throughout the PROS Comprehensive Plan drafting process, the City provided numerous
opportunities for citizen involvement. The City initiated the planning process in the summer of
2002. The City engaged in significant outreach to community members to identify their key
issues, priorities and perceived needs. A Community Needs Assessment was conducted to solicit
feedback from a broad spectrum of City residents and staff regarding their needs and preferences
for parks and recreation services. The Community Needs Assessment included, among other
things, a survey of 437 households, questionnaires completed by 647 high school and middle
school students, focus groups, a speakers bureau with 44 presentations to community groups and
organizations, twelve stakeholder interviews with identified community leaders, and meetings
with the Mayor’s Advisory Committee and Steering Committee. The Community Needs
Assessment incorporated the findings from a variety of public involvement activities, along with
a community profile, a demographic profile, and a technical analysis of programs, parks and
facilities, and finances.
City staff, through the PROS Comprehensive Plan drafting process, provided the Eugene
Planning Commission and the Eugene City Council with periodic updates on the draft Plan. For
example, in December 8, 2004, City staff provided the City Council with a draft of the PROS
Comprehensive Plan and gave an informational presentation the Council. Additionally, on
January 24, 2005, City staff provided the Planning Commission with a draft of PROS
Comprehensive Plan and gave an informational presentation to the Commission.
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that
notice of the proposed PROS Comprehensive Plan be given and public hearings be held prior to
adoption. Consideration of this ordinance began with a Eugene Planning Commission works
session held on October 10, 2005. On October 11, 2005, a public hearing was held before the
Eugene Planning Commission on the proposed PROS Comprehensive Plan. Department of Land
Conservation and Development notice, notice to interested parties and newspaper publication
1
The term “this ordinance” refers to the ordinance that adopts the PROS Comprehensive Plan and makes two
amendments to the City’s acknowledged land use regulations that are necessary to update the land use regulations to
reflect the adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan in place of the 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 1 of 10
was provided for that hearing. The Eugene Planning Commission left the public record open for
additional written comments until October 17, 2005.
The process for adopting this ordinance complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and
surpasses the requirements of the State’s citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual
base for such decisions and actions.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that
provides a basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the
State in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning goals. These findings and record
show that there is an adequate factual base for decisions to be made concerning the proposed
ordinance.
Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units and that
opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. The Goal 2
coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an
exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unity and when the City uses the
information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. Because the PROS
Comprehensive Plan does not regulate when or how park land will be acquired, but rather is an
aspirational plan that sets forth the needs of the community and strategies for satisfying those
needs, no other governmental units are affected by this ordinance.
Even though no other governmental units are affected by this ordinance, in an effort to educate
neighboring jurisdictions about the PROS Comprehensive Plan, the City took steps to provide
neighboring jurisdictions an opportunity to comment on the proposed PROS Comprehensive
Plan. Specifically, in accordance with the Metro Plan, notice and a copy of the proposed PROS
Comprehensive Plan was mailed to the Planning Directors of Springfield and Lane County.
Additionally, on September 27, 2005, City staff met with the Lane County Board of
Commissioners to provide the Board information regarding the PROS Comprehensive Plan. In
response to concerns raised by some of the Commissioners, the City made a number of revisions
to the PROS Comprehensive Plan. On November 1, 2005, City staff met with the Lane County
Planning Commission to provide the Commission with information regarding the PROS
Comprehensive Plan. There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for this ordinance.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to this ordinance as the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not affect any
agricultural land designation. The PROS Comprehensive Plan identifies the park and
recreational needs of City residents and sets forth strategies for meeting the identified needs.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not acquire, rezone or regulate any land inside or outside
the acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore, Goal 3 is not relevant and the ordinance
does not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 2 of 10
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands.
Goal 4 is not applicable to this ordinance as the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not affect any
forest plan designation. The PROS Comprehensive Plan identifies the park and recreational
needs of City residents and sets forth strategies for meeting the identified needs. The PROS
Comprehensive Plan does not acquire, rezone or regulate any land inside or outside the
acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore, Goal 4 is not relevant and the ordinance does
not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open
space and protect natural and scenic resources.
The adoption of this ordinance does not create or amend the City’s list of Goal 5 resources, does
not amend a code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to
address specific requirements of Goal 5, does not allow new uses that could be conflicting with a
Goal 5 resource and does not amend the acknowledged UGB. Therefore, Goal 5 does not apply.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water, and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts from those discharges. Adoption of this ordinance does not affect
the City’s compliance with Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from
natural disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people
and property from natural hazards such as land slides. This ordinance does not affect the City’s
restrictions on development in areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. Further, this
ordinance does not allow for new development that could result in a natural hazards. Therefore,
Goal 7 does not apply.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Goal 8 ensures provision of recreation facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned
with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. Implementation of the
strategies set forth in the PROS Comprehensive Plan will satisfy the recreational needs of the
residents of Eugene area in adequate proportions and in such quantity, quality and location as is
consistent with the availability of the resources to meet those needs. Adoption of this ordinance
is consistent with Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 3 of 10
The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not have a direct impact on economic activities. It does
not change the zoning, designation or allowed uses on any properties. While the PROS
Comprehensive Plan does include strategies to provide of a certain amount of park acreage per
1,000 residents and identifies the need to acquire property for park use, it does not rezone any
property for park use. Thus, the PROS Comprehensive Plan has no effect on the inventories of
industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the ordinance is consistent with Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential
land for needed housing units. This ordinance does not have a direct impact on residential
development opportunities. The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not change the zoning,
designation or allowed uses on any properties. While the PROS Comprehensive Plan does
include strategies to provide a certain amount of park acreage per 1,000 residents and identifies
the need to acquire property for park use, it does not rezone any property for park use. Thus, the
PROS Comprehensive Plan has no effect on the inventories of residential lands. Therefore, the
ordinance is consistent with Goal 10.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The provisions of this ordinance do not affect the planning or development of future public
facilities or services. Therefore, this ordinance is consistent with Goal 11.
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). The Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy
framework through which the TPR is enacted at the local level.
The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) states that land use changes that
significantly affect a transportation facility shall require mitigation measures to address the
anticipated impacts. The rule states that:
(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land
use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure
that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ration etc.) of the
facility. This shall be accomplished by either:
(a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function,
capacity, and performance standards of the transportation facility;
(b) Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities to support the
proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division;
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 4 of 10
(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce
demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes;
or
(d) Amending the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity and
performance standards, as needed, to accept greater motor vehicle
congestion to promote mixed use, pedestrian-friendly development where
multi modal travel choices are provided.
(2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation
facility if it:
(a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility;
(b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system;
(c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or
access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a
transportation facility; or
(d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the
minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP.
Adoption of the ordinance will not change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility. Nor will it change standards implementing a functional classification
system. Further, it will not allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of
travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation
facility or reduce the performance standards of any facility. Therefore, Goal 12 is not implicated
by this ordinance.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
This ordinance does not concern energy conservation. Therefore, Goal 13 does not apply.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
Goal 14 does not apply to the City’s adoption of this ordinance.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The Willamette Greenway area within the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary is governed by
existing local provisions which have been acknowledged as complying with Goal 15. Those
provisions are unchanged by this ordinance.
Goal 16 through 19 (Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources):
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 5 of 10
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property
effected by this ordinance. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the ordinance will not
affect compliance with Goals 16 through 19.
(2) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Metro
Plan.
Parks and Recreation Facilities Element
1. Develop a system of regional-metropolitan recreational activity areas based on a
facilities plan for the metropolitan area that includes acquisition, development, and
management programs. The Plan should include reservoir and hill parks, the Willamette
River Greenway, and other river corridors.
In June, 2003, the cities of Eugene and Springfield and Lane County adopted Rivers
to Ridges, a metropolitan regional parks and open space study. Rivers to Ridges was
developed based on extensive public input with an intended purpose of setting forth what
open space areas are vital to maintaining the regional quality of life and devising methods
to ensure these areas remain intact for future generation. The PROS Comprehensive Plan
does not amend Rivers to Ridges. The PROS Comprehensive Plan contains the following
strategies that ensure consistency with Rivers to Ridges while also addressing this Metro
Plan policy:
H-22 Continue participating in regional open space efforts with Rivers to Ridges
partner agencies.
I-11 Coordinate planning efforts with other City departments and regional agencies,
especially in support of the Rivers to Ridges region vision.
I-13 Maintain a regional planning approach by coordinating with Oregon State Parks,
River Road Park and Recreation District, Willamalane Park and Recreation
District, Lane County Parks and other neighboring jurisdictions.
I-22 Work with Lane County and property owners of local gravel mining operations
located north of Eugene’s urban growth boundary along the Willamette and
McKenzie Rivers, to explore the recreation potential of those sites once mining
operations are concluded.
2. Local parks and creation plans and analyses shall be prepared by each jurisdiction and
coordinated on a metropolitan level.
In 1989 the City adopted the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan as the City’s local park
and recreation plan. The PROS Comprehensive Plan, being adopted by the proposed
ordinance, replaces the 1989 Plan as the City’s local park and recreation plan.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 6 of 10
3. Accelerate the acquisition of park land in projected growth areas by establishing
guidelines determining where and when developers will be requires to dedicate land for
park and recreation facilities, or money in lieu thereof, to serve their developments.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan contains the following strategies that address this Metro
Plan policy:
B-40 Acquire property or obtain access easements from private property owners to fill
missing links and improve connectivity.
H-2 Develop programs to maximize donations, grants and partnerships to increase the
resources available for parks and recreation. Develop gift catalogs for key parks,
recreation, and open space facilities and programs.
H-17 Pursue and maintain effective partnerships with public, private, and non-profit
organizations to acquire, develop, and maintain parks, open space, and recreation
facilities.
I-20 Coordinate with developers to ensure that new residents will have access to and
be adequately served by parks and open space.
I-23 Acquire parkland and natural open space in advance of need to reduce land
acquisition costs and to protect critical resources.
I-24 Identify and pursue opportunities with willing sellers as the preferred approach
when evaluating parkland and natural open space acquisition options. Consider
willingness of seller as a key criterion when prioritizing acquisition opportunities.
I-26 Ensure that the City’s acquisition program provides a balance of natural areas and
developed parks for active recreation consistent with community values.
4. Encourage the development of private recreation facilities.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan contains the following strategies that address this Metro
Plan policy:
A-16 Increase outreach to community groups and other organizations that support
seniors, such as assisted-living facilities and faith groups.
A-23 Explore partnerships to expand outdoor recreation activities and programs that
promote environmental awareness, volunteerism, and stewardship, including
options that are affordable.
A-37 Partner/collaborate with resident companies and other cultural venues to provide
cultural opportunities.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 7 of 10
C-2 Develop and maintain partnerships to increase access to recreation facilities
owned or managed by others.
C-27 Develop partnerships with gardening and horticultural clubs, such as the Master
Gardeners, the Hardy Plan Society, the Native Plant Society, and the
Rhododendron and Rose Societies, to enhance existing gardens and to provide
additional botanical gardens.
H-12 Pursue local business sponsors to subsidize fees for high-cost programs, such as
through an “Adopt-a-Program” effort.
H-16 Partner with businesses to provide services and amenities, such as vendors in
parks.
H-17 Pursue and maintain effective partnerships with public, private, and non-profit
organizations to acquire, develop, and maintain parks, open space, and recreation
facilities.
5. Develop mechanisms and processes by which residents of an area to be served by a
neighborhood park or play lot can participate in the design, development, and
maintenance of the facility.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan contains the following strategies that address this Metro
Plan policy:
B-7 Prepare master plans for parkland and facilities prior to development, major
improvement, or renovation to promote cohesive, quality design and to ensure
plans are consistent with community needs.
D-10 Develop and maintain an interested parties list for natural resource issues related
to parks, recreation, and open space, and schedule periodic workshops for
feedback on issues, programs, and improvements.
F-1 Develop or update park designs or master plans before making significant
improvements to the site.
G-17 Continue facilitating and encouraging the formation of adopt-a-park groups for
each park and facility.
G-21 Provide public information to educate the community about parks maintenance
issues and benefits, such as invasive species, vandalism, play area safety, native
plants, etc. Partner with neighborhood associations.
I-34 Balance long-term, community-wide interest with the interests of neighborhoods
and individuals when planning and designing the City’s park, recreation and open
space system.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 8 of 10
I-70 Continue involving citizens in park design and development, as well as in
program development from the earliest possible stage.
I-71 Increase innovative strategies to improve citizen involvement in parks and open
space planning efforts, such s teleconferences, electronic on-line chat rooms, child
care at meetings, and partnerships with schools.
6. All metropolitan area parks and recreation programs and districts shall cooperate to the
greatest possible extent in the acquisition of public and private funds to support their
operations.
Chapter V of the PROS Comprehensive Plan describes potential funding sources for the
Plan improvements. The Plan identifies both public and private funding sources. The
identified public funding sources include: general fund, road fund, stormwater &
wastewater fees, and wetlands mitigation bank funds. The identified private funding
sources include: local option levy, private grants and foundations, public/private
partnerships, and fees and charges. Additionally, the following funding sources were
identified for capital expenses: system development charges, donations, local
improvement district, general obligation bond, public/government grant programs,
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, local government grants, urban
forestry grants, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, land trusts, Nation Tree Trust,
lifetime estates and property exchanges.
Additionally, the PROS Comprehensive Plan contains the following strategies that
address this Metro Plan policy:
B-24 Coordinate long range planning of neighborhood parks with Eugene School
District 4J and Bethel School District 52, particularly with regard to school
consolidations, land disposal, or new school developments as school facilities
often function as focal points for neighborhood recreation.
B-33 Work with the River Road Park and Recreation District in long-range planning to
continue to meet community park needs in this area.
E-16 Coordinate with other agencies and providers to encourage the development of a
regional trail system linking Eugene/Springfield with Fern Ridge Reservoir, the
coast, the Cascades, and the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. Provide bicycle
and pedestrian access through agricultural areas in the Willow Creek,
Bethel/Danebo, and Santa Clara planning areas of Eugene.
H-14 Improve partnerships with River Road Parks and Recreation District, School
Districts 4J and 52, Lane Transit District, EWEB, Willamalane Parks and
Recreation District, Lane County Parks and other public agencies to improve
service and maximize efficiency.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 9 of 10
Code Amendments Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following criteria (in
bold and italic) be applied to a code amendment.
(1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission.
The two code sections amended by this ordinance do not implicate most of the Statewide
Planning goals. To the extent that they do, see findings above.
(2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted
refinement plans.
The two code sections amended by this ordinance do not implicate most of the Metro
Plan or Refinement Plan policies. To the extent that they do, see findings above.
(3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC 9.3020
Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone.
The amendments do not establish a special area zone.
Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ___ 10 of 10
EXHIBIT B
Note: The PROS Comprehensive Plan is available in its entirety on the City of Eugene
Parks and Open Space web site.
ATTACHMENTB
PUblic '[e~tlmony
Deborah P. Jeffries
Page 1
Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
Eugene Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan
October 11, 2005
Parks, recreation and open space do make a positive contribution to the overall quality of
life of our community, inCluding the economy. RiverRidge Golf Complex, a 160 acre
public golf facility started in 1988, was designed, built and is still operated by my
husband Ric and 1. Open space and recreation of that space is our business. The
property is in the Urban Transition area of the UGB (approx 130 acres) and outside the
UGB (approx. 33 acres). All is within the Metro Planning Area. An intergovernmental
agreement in the late 1980's gave the administration ofland use matters to the City of
Eugene for all property within the UGB, including those properties that were not yet
annexed into the City. Lane County remains the local government authority for all the
property whether in the UGB or outside. The golf course property included in the City's
PROS plan is outside the UGB, thus not in the City's administration or legal jurisdiction.
My objections fall into two general areas: The Planning Area and The PROS Plan
Content.
The Planninl! Area
1. PROS Planning Boundary includes property outside the City of Eugene legal planning
boundary.
The City of Eugene is responsible for land use planning, permitting and administration of
property inside the Urban Growth Boundary (DGB). This includes property in the Urban
Transition area (outside the City of Eugene but inside the UGB).
The City of Eugene PROS planning boundary extends past the Metropolitan Planning
Boundary.
Ouestions: Who directed and authorized Parks' Staff to create this planning area, an area
that is clearly outside their jurisdictional boundaries? How can the City Planning
Commission review Irecommend and the City Council approve a planning document that
includes area not in their jurisdiction'?
Staff offers the following disclaimer (Chapter 1, page 2)
The parks, recreation, and open space planning area for the Eugene PROS
Comprehensive Plan extends beyond the City limits to include all areas within the
urban growth boundary (UGB), including unincorporated areas. In addition,
several recommendations for future park and open space areas involve land
beyond the UGB. This plan is not intended to have any regulatory effect for land
located outside City limits.
Of interest is that Staff changed this paragraph from the one presented to the County
Commissioners a couple weeks ago. It read (omitted portion in current version
underlined):
Public Testimony
Deborah P. Jeffries
Page 2
The parks, recreation and open space planning area for the Eugene PROS
Comprehensive Plan extends beyond the City limits to include all areas within the
urban growth boundary (UGB), including unincorporated areas. In addition,
several recommendations for future park and open space areas involve land
beyond the UGB. Exist/no statutes allow areas outside of the UGB to be
included within the Dlanninq area. This plan is not intended to have any leaat
regulatory effect for land located outside City limits. On/v if such Dropertv is
annexed to theC/tv, or alternativelv. if the Countv also adoDts the DIa" for
areas outside Cltv limits. would the plan have Jetlal or retlu/atoN effects for
such land.
Questions: So, what are those "existing statutes" anyway or did Staff just make that up?
It is pretty clear from the two week old version that Staff and the City of Eugene plan to
use this document when property is "annexed to the City", even if the property is
currently outside the City's legal planning area.
II. Staff does not recognize existing land use permits in effect.
On August 8, 1988, Ric and I received a Greenway Development Permit to allow a golf
course within an E-30 District, with an exemption of the 100 foot WiIlamette River
setback requirement (Appendix A). This permit was approved by the Lane County
Hearings Official because the property in question (the same property the City has
included in the PROS planning area) was OUTSIDE the City's planning area and
administration. Although the County Planning staff had not required a Greenway Permit
for the golf course construction, the City of Eugene Parks Staff did because of the desire
to guarantee the future construction of a bike path along the Willamette River. Despite
numerous conversations with Staff that a 200 fUsee flying object (golf ball) and bicycles
do not mix, the City staff insisted that County staffmake the permit a contingency to the
golf course construction approvaL (Appendix B: Chronological summary) The County
did as demanded by the City. However, neither staff had bothered to review that an
exception to the Greenway setback is water dependency, which the golf course obviously
is. Consequently, the Greenway permit was issue with the exception to the 100 foot
setback.
This above summary is pertinent to this discussion because at present City Park staff is
quick to say during their presentations that they do not regulate outside of the UGB.
Well - not exactly.
Question: How can this property have a linear park (bike path) drawn on the City's Trans
Plan and the City's Park Plan when there has been a Greenway Development Permit with
an exemption ofthe 100 ft. setback in place since 1988? How can the very City Planning
Department and Parks Department who insisted on this pennit conveniently forget the
rulmg and document exist when "planning"?
I don't have an answer. However, it does support the fact that Staff does not provide the
professional expertise and research that should be offered to the Planning Commission,
City Councilor citizens committees when developing or reviewing planning areas and
documents. If Staff does not get their way, do they simply ignore what is in place? This
Public Te&iimony
Deborah P. Jeffries
Page 3
and other examples I could provide lead me to believe the answer is yes. I simply cannot
believe that no one in Planning or Public Works knew of the 1988 Greenway permit.
To make matters worse, City Staff is insisting on including a linear park on property that
is outside their legal planning area. While I respect the state and local planning process
that we follow, I do not believe anyone should be subject to the harassment and time
commitment necessary to debate with a local government on planning & property rights
that are not in that local government's jurisdiction.
The PROS Plan
I. The Plan is inconsistent with a key objective and implementation strategy of the River
to Ridges, June 2003 document.
On page 25 of the Rivers to Ridges, the first implementation strategy states:
"Rely on voluntary participation of property owners when acquiring land or
purchasing conservation easements. n
The PROS plan has no such language. Staffhas stated that the City "prefers" to work
with willing sellers, but they decline to adopt the language used in the Rivers to Ridges
endorsed plan. PROS Executive Summary, page x
"Identify and pursue opportunities with willing sellers as the preferred approach
when evaluating parkland and natural open space acquisition options. Consider
willingness of seller as a key criterion when prioritizing acquisition opportunities. "
So, what are the other approaches? I doubt any Commissioner would have supported the
River to Ridges project if the strategy read something like: "A key objective of this study
is to devise strategies that mayor may not infringe upon the rights of property owners.
While voluntary participation is welcome, it will not stop the acquisition of property from
unwilling sellers".
Note, the PROS planning area is suspiciously similar to the River to Ridges planning area
used in the June 2003 Vision and Strategies Metro Regional Study endorsed by all local
area governments, planning and park groups. However, this was not a refinement plan
document.
II. The Plan is not comprehensive in assessment of existing Parks, Recreation & Open
Space.
The Planning Area (Chapter 1, page 2 & 3) states
"the City of Eugene provides the majority of parks, facilities and programs within
this planning area. "
This is false. There are over 2500 acres of West Eugene Wetlands (the Nature
Conservancy), over 30 acres of school sports fields and more than 300 acres of golf
courses in the planning area. None of these recreational facilities have been included in
PROS. Add to this the City's GoalS ordinance controlling over 1300 acres of open
Public Testimony
Deborah P. Jeffries
Page 4
space not included in the study. In short, there are more acres not listed in this study
(4130 acres) than there are included in PROS.
The consequence of this exclusion is a severely skewed assessment of "need" for
additional parks and open space as the population grows.
The Table B-1 from the PROS plan states that 1,316.04 acres is needed with a projected
population of 210,900 by the year 2025.
Tobl$ 1-1; Pork. & Open So<lCEl ~rd8 and A.~ NMd
~IWIISOl'l lS NIiI Nnn
~l } 1 Ii .8
l~ &. c .. :D -Ii
i it
h 'I~ i j .t
ti\ Ii J 1! 1 Ii
Jl~ i I :g n }i "
.- J ~
,.... T_ Jl U4.w1 210.""
NGi{ttbcit~oodPn L~ I.I.~ " 1.J &J ~~ IJJ 1.<<ll 1.1 <W.ll I,cUO
~.a,.Po<ll1 1J'2 1.8.1 (I 4 10 m.1J 111 tOOl u: 2B3 91.1&
NcA.ud .....,...11I 6$1 l,c.W -Mia: nl.:J ZJ 1.4&417 "'.27 UID Io.a 111.92 .IZ.22
WaiJ:Iti .1 1,9149 ll.tJ J~ 1\2 lOU2 I&UI
Ub<n !'I..... n/a nlo nfcs nk, I 1.10 001 1.00l
M~ia" Perilll HI n,'o nf" a 6 6..'4;1". .too tOOl
:NCltI'lub 1.00 D14 nlo n10 1~ WI.JS Ut 1003
lP<lIOaJ U.. racifi(.. .\:,21 :U:\ n/o nl", ~ m.n au 1001
othrit~ .u .,.>> '.Bi .':. ,,& lauU 4U.U
iOTAl. I'.!' 21.$2 10 al 1,1) ,-'U1M lUa I~ 2ll1l Z1..12 UI'-84
(}.t~~i),~-r"-Rwt u.o.tM~.~~.$,.~ t~....~,~..r.~.~>>;1:i__4A.lt-"-RlOlitllCt "IIIl:lO<~IICll~
l'c<<.j.,..*.n"'~
l>.:.~~Jtdri)e..:e.~'''UtNt<<i~ll<<tlilt'J:Jf'<<4' ~'''''N'''~.~:l,~('~ f....M._,.N.~m.....*tl..~
"~wa'k;o;"J.1<<t'4... r......:t\:'fMl~ ~:.>>Q......
...
.1'~~~""l~!o>>(*<<--t}*;h~~.a..",*11,)W~...
fU-,) lJ:koI.*"rl_pt*....~~w:.>>PHk ..it~'>>"*'*<~..f_illtl..,w.~n~.,.."'"Iit....
However, a truly comprehensive inventory of the planning area shows the community has
met or exceeded most category goals. For example, the Community Parks category lists
219 total acres. However, this number excludes the acres of some City owned Sports
Parks (Shasta, Churchill & Cal Young). A low estimate of this missing acreage area
would be 25 total acres. The County Fairgrounds, Annitage Park, and Emerald Park
(River Road Parks & Rec. District) easily total the 75 acres, thus meeting the 2025
Community Parks goal already.
The Natural Area Parks need is the most understated total. As stated earlier, there are at
least 2500 acres in the West Eugene Wetland area that are not identified. At the
suggested growth rate of 2% per year, there is currently enough Natural Area Parks to
meet the needs into the next century!
The total existing acres in the .'Other Parkland" category is 987 acres with a future need
of 446 acres. The current acres omit all high school & college sports fields and three area
golf courses from the total. (approx. 450 acres).
Public Testimony
Deborah P. Jeffries
Page 5
The only specific category helow the projected 2025 goal is Neighborhood parks. But
150 acres of need is only about 12% of the total need PROS is attempting to establish.
Of course, it should be remembered that the total acres of existing open space, parks and
recreation not listed in the PROS exceeds 4000 acres. While the planning area may he
short 150 acres of neighborhood park acres in the next 20 years of population growth, the
PROS planning area is certainly not lacking in total parks, recreation and open space
acres.
III. Citizen Participation
As previously stated, the planning area extends far outside the City of Eugene
boundaries. Throughout the PROS document, community participation has been
emphasized. However, City staff has neglected to state that the "'series of six public
workshops", focus groups, "statistically valid community survey" and community group
presentations were to City of Eugene populations. In fact, all of the "advertising" of this
process was a "City of Eugene" PROS. There was never a point of clarification that this
process was inclusive of property in the DT area, Metro planning area or property beyond
that boundary.
While Staff is quick to defend that no property owner received individual notice of this
process, this should not be accepted as a defense that property owners outside the City's
should have known about the City's activity simply because there were advertisements in
the Register Guard or in neighborhood meetings. For example, RiverRidge Golf
Complex is not located in the City limits and the 33 acres adjacent to the Willamette
River is not even in the UGB. Consequently, as a property owner, I received no notices
from the City or the Cal Young neighborhood association about future City plmming
activity. I also have no reason to believe the City is including property outside their
administrative land use boundary (DGB).
Frankly, there is no excuse for this lack of clarity in the advertising. No excuse for not
including citizens outside the City limits. There were nine (9) City staff participating on
the PROS project management team headed by project manager, Andrea Riner. It is
unbelievable that not one ofthe members thought of this omission in this almost three
year process.
Summary
Here are my suggestion/recommendations
1. The adoption process should be stopped. First of all there is no Oregon State
statute in the land use process that requires a PROS as a refmement to the Metro
Plan. It is optional to local governments.
2. The Platming Commission should direct Staff to do a complete inventory of ALL
ParkJRecreation and Open Space WITHIN the DGB. Since they have done all
City owned areas, this should not he too difficult to add the private and other
public sector property.
Public Testimony
Deborah P. Jeffiies
Page 6
3. Staff should then provide an analysis of whether the current UGBarea meets the
population ratios outlined in the PROS. Obviously, if 4000+ acres have been left
off, the City is a bit closer to meeting future PRO goals than is reflected in the
"missing PROS Draft".
4. Council should decide if they want the Staff to expand to Outside the City's
jurisdiction in the planning process for Parks and Recreation. In other words, is
Council willing to identify where the City is going to expand the UGB within the
next 20 years (which is the parameters of the existing PROS)? City Parks Staff
have been operating outside of the Planning process with this study and proposal.
NOONE wants to discuss or state that the Draft effectively supports UGB
expansion - but it does. (Kind oflike not talking about the elephant in the room).
If the City Council answers yes to this question, then the County and property
owners outside the UGB should be invited as an active partner in the process as
well as, not an after thought as is happening now.
5. Then the step of locating future Park and Recreational needs should be done.
(Note: I did not include Open Space because those needs are well met)
The whole point to PROS is proper planning and management of Parks, Recreation and
Open Space. No entity can develop a success and economically responsible plan without
accurate information in the first place. The document does not meet that standard. Ms.
Riner reported to me that PROS cost $200,000. She also stated the project did not have
funding to inventory property not owned by the City of Eugene. Obviously PROS is not
a comprehensive study, consequently any planning using the study will not be
comprehensive either.
The PROS comprehensive plan should NOT be forwarded to Council. It should be
returned to Staff with direction to make it truly comprehensive of the planning area that is
within the City's jurisdiction.
Public Testimony
Deborah P. Jeffries
October 17, 2005
Eugene Planning Commission
Public Hearing
Eugene Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan
October 17, 2005
This is a second piece of testimony submitted to the Eugene Planning Commission
regarding the Eugene Parks, Recreation & Open Space Compo Plan. This comment
concerns the relationship of the Metro Plan to the PROS document under consideration.
Park Definitions are inconsistent with the Metro Plan
Within the Metro Plan, Parks and Recreation Facilities Element is presented on page III-
H- I through llI-H-5. The MetroPlan categorizes parks and recreational facilities into
six (6) types: Regional-Metropolitan Parks, Community Parks, Neighborhood Parks,
Play Lots, Community Parks, Special Recreational Facilities. The PROS uses a different
delineation:
· Neighborhood Park: includes play lots and neighborhood parks of the Metro plan
· Community Park: similar to the Community Parks of the Metro Plan
· Urban Plaza: does not exist in the Metro Plan as a separate type of park or
recreational facility
· Metropolitan Park: similar to the Regional-Metropolitan Parks in the Metro Plan
but does not included Natural Open Space.
· Natural Area Park: does not exist in the Metro Plan as a separate type of park or
recreational facility
· Linear Park/Greenway: does not exist in the Metro Plan as a separate type of park
or recreational facility. This type of Park/Greenway is a component of the
Regional and Community Park categories in the Metro Plan.
· Special Use Facility: similar to the Metro Plan but does not include the private
recreational facilities that are included in the Metro Plan.
Question: How can PROS use different categories from the Metro Plan? This is another
example of Park Staff not doing the professional planning and development review of
existing documents prior to development.
Existine: Park Levels
Under Findings of the Metro Plan (3.a. page III-H-2), there were sufficient gross acres of
regional-metro park land to meet a future metro population of 246,000. The PROS uses
inconsistent categories from the Metro Plan, making a comparison very difficult and open
for debate.
Item 4: Determination of Adequacy (page IIl~H-3)
PROS does not follow the determination of adequacy criteria required in the Metro Plan
The Metro Plan clearly states NRP A standards should not be the detenninant ofthe
adequacy of the park and recreation facilities provided by each jurisdiction. Adequacy
"must be based, not only on total acres or facilities, but..
. the values of the residents (within the jurisdiction)
Public Testimony
Deborah P. Jeffries
October 17,2005
· location of facilities relative to residents each is intended to serve
· specific function each park is intended to serve
· the role private facilities play in providing recreational opportunities
Question: Why does PROS exclude private facilities in their analysis?
Item 5: Complete Inventory of Park and Recreation Facilities (Page 1lI-H-3)
This item specifically directs local government to develop, among other things, a
"complete inventory of park and recreational facilities", The PROS plan has not done
this. Staffhas acknowledged that they have excluded all "non-city" property and
facilities from PROS. Further; Staffhas excluded some of the acres of City owned park
property from the total acre analysis (for example - Shasta Ball Fields).
Question: Has anyone from the Parks and Open Space Department read the Metro Plan
Document? I can't believe Staff has submitted a "plan amendment" that is clearly
inconsistent with Findings of the Metro Plan.
Item 6: Recognition of private recreational facilities (Page IIl-H-4)
The Metro Plan recognizes that "private facilities supplement and help meet the demand
for a variety of recreational opportunities".
Question: Why does Staff not count private facilities in their calculation when it is clear
the Metro Plan recognizes it as a contribution to meeting the demand?
SUMMARY
I can only think of one or two explanations for PROS inconsistency with the Metro Plan;
neither is very flattering to the City of Eugene Staff.
1. Staffhas not read the Metro Plan document as it pertains to Park. If that is true,
what exactly was Staff thinking about when they decided to do a "comprehensive
plan"?
2. Staff ignores the rules if they can get away with it. Harsh but true at times. Why
do we have a Metro Plan if the community does not agree to use it as the guiding
light of planning?
Frankly, there is no excuse for this. The private sector is continually required to follow
the Metro Plan as well as the local land use code for the area. When will the City start
doing the same?
Appendix A
t"
<<
. '
August 8) 1988
Agenda Item #3'
Page 1 of 9
LANE COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICIAL
REQUEST FOR A GREENWAY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
TO ALLO~ A GOLF COURSE WITHIN AN E-30 DISTRICT
(UNCONTESTED)
AppHcation Summary
Eric Jeffries, 1509 WillamatteSt.) Eugene, OR. 97401. Assess~rlsmap 17-03-07,
tax lot 300. Request for .a Willamette Greenway Development Permit to allow a
golf course within the" boundary of the Wi] lamette River Greenway.
HearinQ Date:
July 7; 1988
(Record Held Open Until August 2, 1988)
. August 8, 1988
Decision Date:
Appeal Deadline:
August 18, 1988, Lane County Board of Commissioners
Statement or Criteria and Standards
Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan
Lane Code 16.212
Lane Code 16.254
Facts Relied Upon {Findings~
,
1. The subject property, hereinafter referred to as 'the property', is about
33 acres in size and is bordered by the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary, on
the east; the Willamette River, on the west, tax lot 200, assessor's map
17-03-07, on the north; and tax lot 800, assessor's map 17-03-07, on the
south. The property represents the westernmost port ion of tax lot 300 J
assessor's map 17-03-07.
The applicant proposes to place about three fairways of a golf course which
win occupy the remainder of tax lot 300. No structures are planned for
this portion of tax lot 300. The site has historically been cultivated up
to the top of the river hank and the riparian vegetation ends at the top of
th~ river bank.
2. The'property is designated as Sand and Gravel by the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and is zoned EFU-30. The
property is outside of the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary but is located
within the Jurisdictional Boundary of the Metro Plan and within the
. boundary of the Willamette River Greenway.
3. A portion of the property is wi.thin a regulatory floodway and a portion is
within an "A5H flood hazard zone.
I"IU~U;)\' {",o, J.:lOQ
Agenda .Item #3 .
Page lof 9
4. The property was rezoned from SG Sand, Gravel, and Rock Products Oi strict
to EFU-30 on. July 15, 1988. Thi s rezoning (PA 1447-88) became effective on
July 25, 1988.
,.
5. ORS 215.213(2)(0 allows golf courses as conditional uses within exclusive
farm.use districts. .
6. The property has not been designated as a significant viewpoint or vista or
a significant historic or archeological site by Lane County. Neither has
the property been designated as having significant fish, wildlife or
natural (vegetative) areas.
7. There are no agr'icultural operations in the vicinity of the property; the
nearest agricultural operation occurs about one mil eaway.
8. The property is identified on the Metro Plan's scenic inventory, apparently
because of its trees. and view of the Wi1lamette River, and is designated
for aggregate extraction by the Metro Plan Diagram. .
9. The TransPlan Bicycle System Map shows a bikepath (#223) generally located
para He 1 to the. Will amette Ri ver on the property. However, since the
property is located outside of the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary. the City
of Eugene has not designed a bike path for this area.
Tom Stinchfield. Lane County Transportation Planning, in a July 27. 1988
memorandum to Jerry Kendall, Lane County Land Management Division, stated
that golf courses are not significant generators of bicycle traffic and in
regard to Route #223, there are no Short-term plans to place a riverbank
'bicycle system to or through the property.'
10. The property is classified as alluvial bottomland and its' soils, for the
most part, consist of Chehalis silty clay loam and Newberg loam. The U$oil
Survey of Lane Countylt rates ChehaHs a.s being suited for recreational
development and the Newberg as being well suited for recreational
development.
11. The Wi llamette River is a Class I stream.
12. The irrigation of the property cannot be accomplished through the use of a
single well and it is unlikely that 'the aquifer could support more than one
we 11 . If a we 11 system cannot support i rrtgat i on needs duri ng a dry
season, a golf course may be irreparably damaged. Most golf courses in the
area rely upon a surface body of water, such as a river or creek, for
1rrigat1~n needs if they ~o not have a municipal source available. The
. Emerald Valley and Tokatee golf courses draw their irrigation water from a
river and a creek. respectively.
Decision
THE REQUEST FOR A GREENWAY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CPA 1449-88) IS APPROVED subject"
to the follOWing conditions:
" ,
..
~.'
August 8. 1988-
Agenda Item #3
Page 3 of 9
1. Building ancl sanitation permits are required prior to any construction.
2. A faCility permit from the Lane County Public Works Department is required
for any new driv~,way access or modification of an existing access.
3. A special use permit is required for placement of the proposed use within a
deSignated floodway.
4. This permit must be implemented (i.e. substantial construct,ion
accomplished) within two years of the date of approval. An extension of
time may be granted without an additional hearing if the Hearings Official
receives a written request from the applicant prior to the expiration' of
thi s condition.
Justification for D~cision (Conclusion)
I .' P LAN CONFORMITY
The ,Metro Plan designates the property as Sand and Gravel andi s zoned E-30.
Environmental Resources Element Policy #l1c (page III-C-8) indicates that open
space uses and agricultural uses are appropriate uses for land designated Sand
and Grave 1 .
Willamette River Greenway Policy #9 (page III'-O-5) requires' that local
refihement plans and implementing ordinances be applied to the specific use
management considerations of Statewide Planning Goal #15, when not otherwise
addressed by the Metro Plan.
Compliance, with, the Willamette River Greenway policies of the Rural
Comprehensive Plan shall be addressed through affirmative compliance with the
criteria of Lane Code 16.254(4).
The Hearings Official concludes that the proposed golf course is consistent with
the relevant policies of the Metro Plan.
II. ZONE CONFORMITY
Lane Code 16.254(3) requires that new intensifications, changes or use or
developments allowed in applicable zones obtain a greenway development permit.
Lane Code 16. 254( 4) further requ i res that such deve 1 opment con form to the
following criteria:
(i) Thedevefopment protects or enhances the eXisting vegetative fringe
between the actiVity and the river. Where such protective action is
shown to be impractical under the circumstances, the maximum
landscaped area or open space shall be provided between the activity and
the river and the development provides for the reestablishment of
vegetative cover where it will be significantly removed dt.lriog the
process of land development.
The property has been historically cultivated up to the top of the river
bank and therefore the vegetative fringe does not extend beyond that
-.
r\1.I\:l1.l;)~ U, .L;I~O'
Agenda I tern #3'
Page 4 of 9
point. The proposed golf course will not impact the river bank and the
vegetative fringe should not be disturbed.
(ii) Existing public access to and along the river either is not necessary or
the. necessary access wilt be provided by appropriate legal means.
Currently, no public access is provided to the river through the
property. The development of the proposed use will. however, provide the
public with visual access to the river in a recreational setting.
While the TransPlan shows a bicycle path route along the river through
the property. the Hearings OffiCial shall not require an easement to
implement this 'plan. First, the property is .located outside of the urban
growth boundary and the Willamette River Greenway Goal (Statewide
Planning Goal #15) emphasizes access to urban and urbanizable areas.
Further) the property is bounded on the north and south by long term
aggregate extraction operations and the proposed bike path route cannot
be connected with another bike path route within the foreseeable future.
Second, there is no ev i dence in the record that there is a connection
between the proposed golf course and the need for the bike path in this
area. Indeed, the July 27th memo from Tom Stinchfield indicates that golf
courses are not significant generators of bicycle traffic. Absent any
significant relationship between the proposed use and the need for the
bike path, a required easement dedication would very likely represent a.
violation of the applicantls due process rights as a prohibite.d taking
without compensation, (See Nollan v. California Coastal Comm1n, 483 US
_, 107 S Ct 3141. 97 l Ed 2nd 677 (1987')). .
(Hi)' Preserve and maintain land inventoried as uagriculture" in the adopted
WHlamette River Greenway Plan for farm use, as provided for in Goal 3,
and minimize interference with the long-term capacity of .lands for farm
use.
The property is .not designated "agriculture" by the Willamette River
Greenway Plan but it is zoned E-30. The Metro Plan designates the
property for sand. and gravel extraction and considers agriculture and
open space as uses which are appropriate for sand and gravel resourCe
protection.
The open space nature of the proposed use wi 11 preserve the property for
. either sand and gravel extraction or agricultural use.
(iv) Protect, conserve or preserve significant scenic areas, viewpOints and
vistas. .
The proposed site has not been designated as a significant viewpoint or
vista but it is listed on the Metro Planls scenic inventory because of
its trees and view of the river. The applicant has removed a few trees
for purposes of the design of the golf course. The proposed use will
allow greater access to the remaining trees and th.e view of the river.
~ "r;.
I r\ "''1'.,...1 \..I....
August 8, 1988
Agenda Item #3.
Page 5 of 9
(v)
Harvest timber in a manner that wildlife habitat~ riparian and other
significant vegetation will be preserved, conserved. or restored and
otherwise result in only the partial harvest of timber beyond the
vegetative fringe.
The proposed use does not involve the harvesting of timber. Only a few
trees are being removed to accomodate the design of the golf Course.
(vi) Min imiie vandalism and trespass.
The development of ~he property should reduce vandalism and trespass as
most users will be present for a specific recreational purpose and the
property will be overseen by employees duri n9 the day and by the
app 1 i cant, who res i des on the property, duri n9 the 01 ght.
(vii) Locate development away from the river to the greatest possible degree.
The proposed golf course will extend to the top of the river banK but it
will only replace existing, impacted vegetation with landscaping and
open space grass. No structures will be bUilt within 1,000 feet of the
river.
(viii) Protect significant fish~ wildlife habitat and.natural areas.
With the exception of the identified wetland. No significant ffsh.
wildlife habitat or natural area resources have been identified on the
site by the County's inventories (Plan working papers). A'discussion of
how the wetland wi 11 be protected occurs wi thi n the PLAN CONFORMITY
. section of this decision.
Ox) Is compatible with the WHlamette River Greenway based upon the
following considerations:
(aa) A development which is a mining or a mineral extraction and/or
processing operation must include mining or extraction and/or
processing methods which are designed to' minimize adverse
effects upon water quality, fish and wildlife, vegetation, bank
stabHizatiO'n,stream flow, visual quality, noise, safety and to
guarantee necessary reclamation.
The proposed use does not involve mining or mineral extraction or
processing.
(bb) Protection, preservation, rehabilitation, reconstruction or
restoration of significant historic and archeological resources.
No significant historic or archeological resources have been
identified on the property by the County's inventory documents
(Plan working papers). .
AUgust tj, .1':J~.'
Agenda Item #3
Page 6 of 9
(cc) Presel've areas of annual flooding, floodplains and wetlands.
A portion of the property is located within a designated floodway
and a portion is located within a designated floodplain area.
However, no structures will be placed in either flood hazard area.
(dd) Protection, conservation or preservation of areas along the
alluvia! bottomlands and lands with severe soil limitations from
intensive development.
Information regarding the predominate soils of the property
indicates that they are not predisposed towards erosion and are
suited' to recreational ~sage. No intensive. development is
planned for the property.
(ee) Consideration of the impacts from consumptive uses of water
(i.e., domestic, agriculture, industrial) and nonconsumptive uses
(Le., recreation and natural resources) in efforts of maintaining
sufficient flows to support water users.
The proposed use will use water for irrigation and has applied to
the Oregon Water Resources Department for necessary water rights.
The prior use of the property also l"equired water for irrigation.
The area is not deSignated as being water quantity limited.
(ff) Sustenance and enhancement of water quality by managing or
controlling .sources of water pollution from uses such as: domestic
and industrial wastes, agricultural and timber runoff, septic tank
seepage, gravel operations and other intermittent sources.
The proposed use represents landscaped open space and will lower
the probabability of water pollution as both agriculture and sand
and gravel extraction are noted for being) respectivelYt non-
point and point sources of water pollution.
(gg) Maintenance and sustenance of natural riparian vegetation found
upon the lower alluvial bottomlands and upper terraces bordering
the river for the foHowing reasons: provide habitat, food and
shade for wildlife; protect natural areas; anchor riverbank soils.
and protect a$ricultural land from seasonal erosion; ensure scenic
quality and screening of uses from the river; control trespass;
and to control pollution sources to the river.
The proposed development will not impact riparian vegetation or
any other significant vegetation on the property as the
vegetative fringe eods at the top of the river bank.
t .
August 8, 1988
Agenda Item #3
Page 7 of 9
(hh)
Protection from erosion.
No structural development is proposed and 1 andscaped open space
repres~.nts an excellant way of minimizing erosion.
(ii) Protection and conservation of lands designated as aggregate
resources within the adopted Willamette Greenway Plan.
The Metro Plan recognizes that agricultural usage and open sp~ce
usage are an appropriate method of protecting and conserving
lands designated as aggregate resources.
Lane Code 16.254(4)(b) requires that new intensifications, developments and
changes of use shall be set back 100 feet from the ordinary high waterline of the
river, un'less they are water related or water dependent uses. Approximately 3.2
acres of the proposed golf course lies within the Greenway setback area. The
appl icant argues that the proposed golf course should not be considered a
llchange in useu and, failing that characterization, it should be considered a
water dependant use. The 'Hearings Official will address each of these agruments
seperately below.
The Proposed Use Does Not Represent a Change of Use
.
Lane Code 16.254(2)(f) defines flchange of use" as a different use of the land
which existed on December 5. 1975 and a change which requires alterations of the
land, water or other areas which substantially alters or affects the land or
water. This section, for instance. does not consider landscaping for an
existing use as a change i.o Use. The applicant argues that the threshold for a
change of use, for. the purposes of Code 16; 254, is a change in use which
substantiaHy' alters or affects the land or water. Absent a substantial'
alteration a different use does not become a Change in use.
The applicant therefore argues that the proposed golf course does not
substantially alter or affect the land or water because of the following:
1. No structures. buildings or parking areas are proposed for the setback
area.
.2. The proposed placement of a pump and irrigation intake pipe replaces a
similar pump setup which was installed prior to 1975.
3. Grading and planting of turf represents a minor countouring and
replanting with grass. The contouring will not impair the potential for
the property to be returned to farm use, wi 11 have no adverse effect on
scenic qualities and will not create any visual obstructions of the
river.
4. The 'applicant must obtain a flood plain special use. permit to develop
within a designated floodway. As a part .of this permit. the applicant
must demonstrate that no substantial alteration 1s occuring which would
affect flood levels.
"
" ...
August 8, 1988
Agenda Item #3
Page 8 of 9
5. The planting of grass and minor contouring are exempt from the 'definition
of "change' of usell since they are Illandscapingll which is expressly
exempted. .
The Oregon Court of Appeals would characterize the applicant's argument as
tlnovel." The Hearings Official must agree. The applicant fails to address the
prima.ry impact the proposed use will have on the property: people. The property
was presumably in nonintensive farm use in December of 1975. It must be assumed
that the land was occupied by only a few individuals at anyone time, spraying,
irrigating, and discing the soil, and harvesting the crops. An IS-hold golf
course can be assumed to be used by hundreds of individuals on any given day.
The Hearings Official considers this impact to represent a substantial effect
upon the lan.d. The fact that the physical alteration of the property is minimal
and will not impair future farm potential is not determinate. A Ifsubstantial
alterationtl for the purposes of issuing a special use permit for development
within a floodway is not necessarily equivalent to a similar finding for
purposes of the Greeway setback requirement. The flOOdplain special use permit
is concerned with development and its affect on flood levels. Flood levels are
affected by two primary causes: a fill which would cause, the flood waters to be
displaced elsewhere and a major topographic change which would have the same
effect. Clearly. no such f1developmentU is contemplated by the applicant.
However, the proposed use would generate a substantial increase i H, hLJman
activity on the property and can thus be considered to have a substantial affect
on the land. Finally, a close reading of Lane Code 16.254(2)(f) shows that only
landscaping which is accessory to an existing use is considered outside the
definition of lJchange of use," For these reasons, the Hearings Official must
conclude that the proposed use would substantially affect the property and
therefore represents a change in the prior agricultural use of the property.
The. Proposed' Use is a Water Dependant Use
Lane Code 16.254(4)(b) reads "New intensificationsl developments and changes of
use'shall be set back 100 feet from ordinary high waterline of the river) except
for a water related or water dependent use. It [Emphasi s added] A water
dependent use is defined by Lane Code 16.254(2)(c) as tlA use or activity which
can be carried out only on. 1n or adjacent to water areas because' the.. use
requires access to the water bOdy for waterborne transportationl recreation,
energy production, or source of water." [Emphasis added]
The applicant cannot irrigate the property with water from the Eugene Water and
Electric Board ,because the land is outside of the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary
and Public Utilities. Services, and Facilities Element Policy #2 of the Metro
Plan precludes the extension of water and sewer. service outside of the urban
growth boundary except to Mahlon Sweet Field Airport or to remedy a health
hazard,situation. Evidence indicates that the proposed golf course could not be
irrigated by a single well and that there is good.cause to doubt that the.aqulfer
could support more than one well. An analysis of golf courses in the area
indicates that it is uncommon for a golf course to rely upon wells for
irrigation and that most of them have a more reliable source, such as a river or
creek. Finally) it is dangerous to rely upon wells as a source for irrigation
since they may be insufficient during times of drought and significant damage to
go If courses may occur if they are not constant 1y watered.
August 8, 1988'.1 . '"
Agenda Item #3
Page 9 of9
For the above-listed reasons, the Hearings Official finds that the proposed
Riverside Golf Course is a water dependant use as it must rely upon water from
the Willamette River for irrigation purposes and therefore may be placed within
100 feet of the ordinary high water line of the Wi llamette River.
Respectfully Submitted~
ay d a~(?le)
Garp:l. Darnielle
Lane County Hea,rings Official
clgdjef3
Appendix B
RiVERIDGE GOLF COURSE
Chronological Summary
1. February 29, 1988
Application for rezoning the portion of the property within the urban growth
boundary from AGjUL to RA/UL submitted to City of Eugene.
2. March 15, 1988
Application for conditional use permit to allow a driving range on a portion
of the property being rezoned to RAjUL submitted to City of Eugene.
3. April 13, 1988
Public hearing on application for rezoning to RAjUL; no reference in staff
report to potential bicycle trail issue.
4. April 22, 1988
Decision approving rezoning to RA/ULjSR issued by Hearings Official.
5. April 23, 1988
Public, hearing on conditional use permit application; no reference in staff
report to potential bicycle trail issue.
. .t~.~
6. May 3, 1988
. . .
: .' '-. '.:- "." . ,"', ,'~~;(~"'\' .;' ",,', '. " ' .' . " .
;' ..;>~Ci~i~i:~ap~~yi.p,~.:~~~",tonalu~~.'Pt'rmit appUc.atioil fQ't'ddving tl\nwe/. '.
':lssve,e;'by.~t'rtg~~jtl~tal.' " . . '. .' .
7) ~k12,6;J9$~.'" '~-;' ", : . : '. ~,"
.' .... .,.....:Com~i~~~:4~i,~*{iit~.~~.1;rhitt~'dto ,;Jte C~1Y or E\lgc.~.t\ndLa.he C~unty. f'or
i" '. \ t-fiefQJUJw'iittiati)pttovlUsi .' '" ",' " . .
. .;. t. ,to... "', .'._~ ~:-: t:.:> .": :"," :,' .... '", ,,,' . . ," ~. ',- . , " ,. _ .' ';;\:'. '. .
. .' :~: . '~io~~'.'tw.~)~~iotj~ . of.pf9,I?Crty :~.hject: t(tC~l.t~t,.jit~isdict~9n tr'o~w
. {;;: ':'::;. .' .~~nd.:~;Qt~Y~~:Pis~rie1 and an indeferminat'<'.'$latU&'{po.lJd~lfA,Q/Ul<ltQ .
<. .' ::~. .;EFU. EXclu;~iVe 'FarmUse; : . "n ; . '.' ..
. , .~.,. . ~
,l:
<
,;' ,~>,
::';.~.
..\: I "f'
.' $p~cll;\l'u~e;p~tinifap,p'rQy~i rr~'County fo... '~;.t~~f<' cQ"U:f$e In,' an El:tU
'.z<in~r ..: '. ." .' ": .' ...... -,.' r;. .
..' , ., . .:. : .. I.
Greein~ay qev~loPn1entper~it"'~PPt(jy~lf:o,tAat P~Ji:o.' qf. _be p:topcrty .
lo<:ated:::'\VldHn the" Willameue"Qr~enWaY; ~:"" '. '{;;,i . :.' '..
..
(..'
, ~.'" -'J.;':
, ,
, c
~. ,:, 'If.
;,
'/"t
Riveridge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
Page 2
d. Canditianal use permit approval from City af Eugene for that partion
af the golf course located within urban grawth boundary; and
e. Site review approval from City of Eugene far treatment of patentially
historical house on praperty.
8. June 9, 1988
Dedication of 30 feet of additio.nal right*of *way on North Delta Highway
submitted to. City af :Eugene.
9. June 28, 1988
Filed appHcation far flood hazard special use permit as requested by Lane
County.
1 O.J uly 1, 1988
a. Received City staff report on golf course conditional use permit
application; approval recommended with no. canditians, including no
reference to a bicycle trail.
b. Received County staIr report on galf course [rezoning, special use
permit and Greenway development permit]; appraval recommended
with several conditions, but no reference to. a bicycle trail.
11. July S, 1988
Received a telephane call from Jean Hahn saying that City was going to.
recammenda new canditian requiring dedicatio.n far the bicycle. trailalang
the river's edge. She mentioned that this matter had . come up at the earHer
co.nditio.nal use permit review for the driving range but had not been
included .since that property did nat approach the river. The potential for
such a requirement" was nat cammunicated to applicants or their representa*
tive. Jean indicated that the request for. dedicatio.nhad originated with
Diane Bishap. bicycle co.o.rdinator.
12. July 6. 1988
a. Called Ernie Drapela. Assistant Director of P ARCS Department, to
discuss praposed bicycle trail. Ernie described proposed trail from
Beltline to. confluence and thence to Armitage as "conceptual". He felt
there was merit to. exploring the cancept but emphasized that he didn't
want to do. anything to jeapardize the proposed golf caurse. He
expressed the hope that a "win~win" situatian cauld develop.
Riveddge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
Page 3
b. Received a call at 2:22 p.m. from Jean Hahn saying that memo
concerning bike path dedication could he picked up; picked up copy at
approximately 3:30 p,m.
c. Received a call from Debbie Jeffries at approximately 4:00 p.m. sayi~g
that Gerry McDonnell [projectatchitect] had discussed proposed bicycle
. trail with Ed Smith, fARes Department Director. Ed Smith considered
the proposed trail a very poor idea.
d. Debbie Jeffries discussed the proposed trail with
member of the Bicycle Committee and was told that the proposed trail
was very inapprppriate.
13. July 7) 19.88.
a. Debbie Jeffries met with Diane BiShop on the site and reviewed
proposed plan for the golf course. Diane reportedly indicated that she
had not realized that fairways extended to the river and that there
would be extreme safety problems if a trail was extended through the
golf course area. Diane indicated that the proximity of trails was one
of the reasons for objection to the proposed Alton Baker COurse. Diane
left the site at 10:30 a.m. saying that there were other alternatives for
the trail and that she would withdraw the request for dedication across
the golf course property. . .
b. Public hearing on combined applications commenced at 1:30 p.m. City
reasserted its request for dedication of the biCYCle trail; objections to
that request were presented; . record held open for three weeks to allow
time to attempt a solution and to allow applicant time to prepare a legal
brief on the "taking" issue. The Hearings Official indicated that, even .
without the benefit of further legal briefing, he viewed dedication of
the biCYCle trail as very probably a taking under the Nolan decision and
that City and County staff should approach further discussion with
applicants with that iti mind.
Some of problems with proposed trail noted at hearing: (1) lack of
correspondence with TransPlan depiction; (2) potential inability to
establish linkages on north and south due to active sand and gravel
excavation areas; (3) safety and liability; (4) adverse impact on
proposed golf course; (5) City saying dedication to be made.to Lane
County but no indication that County was prepared to accept dedica-
tion; and. (6) taking issue.
,c. After conclUSion of the hearing, Debbie Jeffries asked Diane Bishop
what had happened between 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. to cause her to
Riveridge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
Page 4
change her position about the bicycle trail. Diane replledthat Ernie
Drapela had advised her the trail was important and that the City
Ilneeded to keep its foot in the door."
d. Received a call from Jerry Kendall at approximately 10:30 a.m. saying
that County staff would be raising the issue of possible need for an
ESEE analysis since wetlands involved; no prior reference to this
. possibility, although applicant had made it clear that a permit applica-
tion had been filed with Division of State Lands and Corps of
Engineers. He initially claimed that applicant was required to submit
ESEE analysis; could not provide a code citation or plan policy as basis
for that position.
14. July 8, 1988
a. Received telephone call from the Hearings Official indicating that he
had determined that an ESEE analysis was necessary; he indicated he
intended to perform the analysis if there was sufficient information in
the record.
b. Gerry McDonnell discussed bicycle path requirement again with Ed
Smith. Ed Smith reportedly indicated extreme displeasure that the
request for dedication had been made and reaffirmed his opposition to
locating a trail through the golf course.
15. July 11, 1988
a. Advised by the Hearings Official at J 1:30 a.m. that he did not feel
there was sufficient information in the record to prepare an ESEE
analysis; he indicated he intended to reopen the record for additional
information on the wetland issue.
b. Advised by the Hearings Official at approximately 2:40 that he wanted
Esther Lev to look at the site and the proposed plan and provide an
assessment of impact. It was my understanding from the Hearings
Official that he did not intend the review to adversely affect the
proposed golf course but to determine if there were reasonable.
mitigation measures that should be considered. Hearings Official
emphasized his intent to avoid delay in the process. Agreed to have
Esther contact Ric and Debbie Jeffries to arrange a time to visit the
site.
C. Advised that Jerry McDonnell was attempting to establish a meeting
with Ernie Drapela since he had been identified by name by Diane
Bishop as the source of the City.s decision to continue requesting a
bicycle trail through the golf course.
Rivet'idge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
Page 5
16. July 12, 1988
a. Received a call from Steve Vorhes, Assistant County Counsel at approx-
imately 9:15 saying that he wanted to schedule a meeting between
County staff and Ric and Debbie Jeffries to discuss what could be done
to place a path through the area in the future. He felt we should deat
.with what could be done in terms of design and then address the issue
of whether this was an appropriate condition. Jim Saul agreed to
contact Ric and Debbie to schedule such a meeting.
b. Met with Ernie Drapela at 1:30 p.m. Other parties present were Ric and
Debbie Jeffries, Gerry McDonnell and Jim Saul.
The meeting began with Ernie referencing a meeting that had occurred
on July 11 of City and County staff. Ernie's recollection of that
meeting was that bicycle path really wasn't the issue; issue was a more
, general one Of public access. He stated that the question or public
access for fiShing or possibly a boat launch had been raised.
Apparently there had been some discussion that, if a biCYCle trail wasn't
required. some other form of access should be considered over this
property.
Ernie was asked specifically if he had taken a position that a bicycle
trail Should be required. He said absolutely not; the most he had
indicated was that the possibility be explored. He said any other
construction of his comments, was a misunderstanding or misinterpre.
tation. He noted that his prior comments had been made without
benefit of seeing the plans for layout of the golf course. He stated very
clearly that he did not believe a bicycle trail over the golf course
property was appropriate after reviewing the plans in more detail.
Ernie Called Diane Bishop; reported that he and she would prepare a
memo on 7/13/88 withdrawing the City's request for a bicycle trail.
Ric and Debbie were assured that this was the City's position.
c. Jim Saul and Debbie Jeffries called Diane Bishop at 2:30 p.m. to
confirm that request for bicycle trail would be withdrawn in writing.
Diane initially claimed there was nothing to withdraw since the City
had never made a formal request; the City had simply tlreminded Lane
County of what was hi TransPlan." Jim Saul obJected that the City
had submitted a formal request and cited the first sentence in the City's
memorandum to the Hearings Official. Diane agreed that the
memorandum withdrawing 'the proposed condition would be phrased
recognizing that the City had submitted a formal request.
Riveridge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
Page 6
d. Called Jean Hahn at approximately 2:45 to advise her of agreement with
Ernie Drapela and Diane Bishop. She was ou.t; left request for her to
return a call to Jim Saul.
e. Called Steve Vorhes and told him that City would be withdrawing
request for bicycle trail. It was agreed that there was no point to
scheduling a meeting to review options it that occurred; agreed to hold
until memo from City had been received and reviewed.
f. Spoke with Jean Hahn at approximately 4:30 p.m. Was told that Ernie
and Diane lacked authority to withdraw the City.s request and that a
further City staff meeting would be necessary to define the City's
position. Was also advised that the earliest that meeting could Occur
would be Monday, July 18th.. Jim Saullo$t his composure and told Jean
that was completely unacceptable because of the delay and risk that
created for the Jeffries. Transferred to Pat Decker who was basically"
. unfamiliar with the situation; described some of the chronology to Pat.
She indicated that she would have to review it with Susan Brody;
Susan was in a meeting at that time and could not be disturbed.
Note: There is no purpose to scheduling a meeting with County staff
until City's position has been defined. This will create even further
delay in reaching any resolution.
g. Spoke with Esther Lev at approximately 4:50 p.m. She was going to
visit site on 7/13/88 and would arrange a time with Ric and Debbie
Jeffries.
17. July 13, 1988
a. Met with Esther Lev, Rie and Debbie Jeffries at site l,\t 10:00 a.m.;
walked area of proposed golf course and wetlands. Es.ther complimen-
ted Ricand Debbie. on the: sensitivity they were showing and indicated .
that she saw few, if any. problems at aU. She indicated that she
intended to review the site plan with an aerial at the office, incor.
porating information obtained on the tour and that her analysis would
becomplc::ted either late on 7/13/88 or early on 7/14/88. She anticipates
that any recommendations will be livery minor". She will call Jim Saul
with results. She will incorporate some language in her report
indicating that replacement of disturbance vegetation with native
grasses would be appropriate from a biological standpoint. subject to .
.appropdatereview in the future. She will. also get the title of a book to
Rie and Debbie that identifies habitat plant species and describes the
type of wildlife various pl$.nt species provide habitat fqt.
RiveridgeGolf Course
Chronological Summary
Page 7
b. Spoke wid~ Jim Croteau at approximately 11:25 a.m. Susan Brody, Tim
Sercombe and he are meeting tomorrow afternoon to define the City's
position on the bicycle tra.il and will have it available before the end of
the day; Jim Saul to meet with Jim Croteau at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow to
review the project and implications of the proposed bicYCle trail to
provide background for the afternoon meeting.
c. . Received copy of Hearings Official's decision approving that portion of
the golf course located with urban growth boundary [city conditional
use permit]; no conditions attached to approval.
18. July 14, 1988
a. Received a call from the Hearings Official at approximately 8:30 a.m.
He indicated that Esther Lev's assessment was going well and that she
intended to revisit the site on Saturday. Two questions had arisen: (1]
can the proposed bddges be placed without heavy equipment going
into/through the wetland areas; and [2] can we provide some further
information concerning the impllct of people going into the wetland
. areas looking for golf balls. Jim Saul to get this information to Esther
Lev.
The Hearings Official also asked what the status of the bicycle path
was; provided him with a summary of what had transpired to date.
especially with respect to city actions/inactions.
b. Met with Jim Croteau at 11:00 a.m. Reviewed the plans for the golf
course with him and pointed out some of the problems and constraints.
He appears to believe that the best location for a biCYCle trail in this
location is on the east side of Delta Highway and indicated that, with a
right-of -way of 60 feet. there was sufficient width for such a trail. His
primary concern appears to be that a failure to require dedleation here
would be inierpretednssome form of precedent in other areas such as
Goodpasture Island. Discussed some of the apparent differences.
inCluding the fact that Goodpasture Island is within the urban growth .
boundary while the riverfront portion of this property is not. He
Indicated that it may be appropriate to have a different access standard
for areas outside of the urban growth boundary; it was agreed that
there is clear basis for diffeting standarqs for urban and rural areas in
Goal 15. He expects Tim. Sercombe to advise them that this is not the
case to test a takings claim. He is to report city's decision by the end
of the day.
c. Received a call f.om Jean Hahn at approximately 2:25 p.m. The formal
and final city position is that it is withdrawing its request for bicy'clc
trail dedication. That position will be communicated to the Hearings
Official in Writing on July 15. 1988.
I
I
Riveridge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
Page &
d. Spoke with the Hearings Official M3:30 concerning city's change in
position. He indicated that the .issue still had to be dealt with [i.e., is
this something required by TransPlan]; partially a question of consis-
tent application.
e. Spake with Jean Hahn at 4:25 p.m. City's memorandum to the.Hearings
Official will provide reasons why the bicycle trail should not be
required; she had spoken with the Hearings Official and said she
understood what he wanted.
f. Discussed this with Al Johnson.. we may have to provide supplemental
findings to the Hearings Official; will determine the necessity for that
after reviewing city's memorandum. .
19. . July 15, 1988
a. Received notice from the Hearings Official of his decision to reopen
the record for additional information on the wetlands and related ESEE
analysis.
b. Provided written response to two questions raised by the Hearings
Official to Esther Lev. Was advised she would not.complete her
analysis until ~he middle of the week beginning July 18. She requested
a copy of the site plan showing where the bridge structures over the
wetland areas were planned.
2-0. July 18., 1988
a. Spoke with Debbie Jeffries; asked for a copy of the site plan showing
location of bridge structures. She will provide one. Also, she and Ric
did not receive a copy of the notice from the Hearings Official
concerning. reopening the record on the wetland subject.
b. Received copy of Hearings OfficiaPs decision approving rezoning to
EFU of the two parcels subject to County jurisdiction.
c. Spoke with Jean Hahn concerning memorandum to Hearings Official
concerning bicycle path dedication. She now expects to have something
available by July 19 or20t 1988. [Note: This is getting very late if
there is another change in city direction or if there is to be need to
substantially supplement what the city submits to the Hearings
Official.]
Riveddge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
Page 9
d. Delivered copy of an annotated site plan to the Hearings Official's
office showing proposed bridge locations.
21. July 20, 1988
a. . Spoke with Jean Hahn concerning city's revised memorandum to the
.Hearings Official; she now indicates that it wilt not be available until
Thursday, July 21, 1988. She says city has not changed its last stated
position on the bicycle trail dedication; it is a case of developing
reasons why this situation is different from other situations in terms of
requiring dedication. She will call me on Thursday as soon as report is
ready.
b. Spoke with the Hearings Official concerning the deadline he had
established of July 21 for us to submit materials for the wetlands ESEE
analysis. My concern was that we had not yet seen Esther Lev's report.
Was advised that her report would not be available until Monday, July
25, 1988. Was advised that. based on his contact with Esther Lev, there
Would not be a problem. Was also advised that we would be able to
comment Upon or supplement her report, the July 21 date notwith.
standing. The Hearings Official also indicated that State Fish and
Wildlife wou.d be submitting something in writing by Thursday, July
21, but that their concerns could be easily addressed.
Advised the Hearings Official that city's revised report wouldn't be
available until July 21; was told that we would have the opportunity to
supplement it if that appeared necessary.
22. July 22, 1988
a. Since a call from Jean Hahn had not been received on July 21, called
the Planning Department at 8:52; was advised that she would be in
sometime after 10:00 a.m. Then called Jim Croteau; he expressed
surprise that the report had not already been transmitted to the
Hearings Official and said he would have Jean call Told him this was
becoming a matter of extreme concern and he agreed.
b. Called the Hearings Official at 9:30 a.m. to determine if anything' had
come in from Department of Fish and Wildlife; he had not received
anything, although it might have been submi'tted to the Land Manage;'
ment Division. Checked with Jerry Kendall of Land Management
Di vision; he had received nothing from ODFW. He was going to call
Bria,n Ferry of ODFw today and would ask ifaIiything had been sent;
he is to report the results of that conversation.
Riveridge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
Page 10
c. Received call from Jean Hahn at 9.59 a.m.apologizing foc not having
city's report ready; she said she would call as soon as it was ready
today. Statement was clear that it would be ready today, July 22. 1988.
d. Spoke with Al Johnson; he will be available today to review city's
report and pr~pare memorandum o!l takings issue if one is required.
e. . Received a call from Jean Hahn at 3:45 p.m. saying city's revised
memorandum to the Hearings Official was available. for piCkup.
Obtained copy; delivered to. Ric and Debbie.
23. July 25, 1988
a. Reviewed city's report of July 22 with Al Johnson; agreed that
supplemental report was necessary. Al to concentrate on taking issue.
Al also spoke with Steve Vorhes; county staff (County Counsel, Land
Management Division and Transportation Planning] to meet this
afternoon to review city.s revised position and will .report back.
b. :Received a letter from George Currin stating that Tom Poage's certifi-
cation was deficient in a number of respects for the purposes of issuing
a flood plain special use permit. Contacted Poage's office and deliVered
copy of Currin's letter. Poage is to call as soon as he has reviewed
letter and can indicate when requested data is available.
C. Reviewed Currin letter with Ric Jeffries and Tom Poage; Poage will
provide necessary data.
d~ Received aealI from Jerry Kendall at $:10 p.m. County staff had met
but had been unable to flnalize a position on the bicycle trail. Asked
Kendall when they would have a position; was told they would have a
position by July 28 in any event since that was the deadline set by the
Hearings Official.
e. Did not hear from either Esther Lev or the Hearings Otficialconcern-
ing wetland report that was due today; will call Hearings Official on
July 26 to ascertain status. .
24. July 26~ 1988
a. Received a copy of the conditional use permit agreement for the
driving range and related development in the mail from the city for .
transmittal to Ric &. Debbie.
.1- \ .
Riveridge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
Page 11
b. Received a caB from the Hearings Official at 11:00 a.m. indicating that
Esther Lev.s comments concerning the wetland area Were available for
pickup. Comments were quite limited: supported making wetlands "off-
Umitstf to minimize human intrusion and urged replacement of
vegetation Uarea impacted by bridge placement.
The HearingS-Official also indiqated that he did not accept the city's
explanation fot not requiring dedication of a bicycle path; decision
concerning dedication would lringe on: (t) whether county was prepared
. to accept the path and consequent liability; and/or (2) taking question.
c. Received a call from Alan Clair at the Eugene Building Safety Division
at approximately 11:15 a.m. as!cing if conditional use agreement for
driving range had been executed yet. Advised hini that it had, noting it
had been signed by Rio and Debbie on June 3rd and by S.usan Brody,
Planning Director~ on June 28th. He said that building permit for
driving range would be issued. {Note: under normal procedures, a copy
of the agreement should have bee.n ~ent from Planning Department to
Building Division as soon as it had been signed by the Planning. .
Director.]
d. Received copy ofODFW letter from the Hearings Official. OnFW gen:" .
erally supportive; views this use as less damaging than alternative uses
might be; considers impact minJmal; urges retention of vegetation to
minimize human access into wetland areas.
25. July 27. 1988
a. Spoke with Jerry Kendall at 2:45 p.m. County staff had met but not
reached a. decision; expected to have subsequent meeting later in the
day.' .
b. Received a call from the Hearings Official at 4:24. County staff was
raising a new issue involving requirement for lOO-foot setback from
ordinary high water line.
26. July 2St 1988
a. Obtained copy of latest county staff report .at 8:00 a.m. Staff basically
held that app}icantnad not adequately addressed access requirements of
Greenway and had not adequately addressed setback requirements.
County memo, in part, appeared to hold that lOO-foot setback should be
required as a means of preserving bicycle trail option.
b. Hearings Official indicated that he would approve hoMing the record
open to address setback issue. Requested that record be held open until
noon on August 2, 1988.
. Riveridge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
. Page 12
c. Debbie Jeffries requested clarification from Tom Stinchfield
concerning certain comments in his memorandum which had been
f.orwarded to the Hearings OffiCial, particularly the clear inference that
applicants had been unwilling to meet with staff. Stinchfield promised
to correct that statement in writing.
d. .Submitted written response to bicycle trail d~dication issue .to Hearings
Official.
27. August 2, 1988
a. Submitted written response to the Hearings Official concerning the
setback issue raised by county staff. Cited three alternative grounds
for not imposing a 100-foot setback from the ordinary high water line:
(1) thedevelopmenfdid not constitute a "change in use" as that term is
defined in Goal #15 and the Lane Code, thus the setback did not apply;
G.-\:"'1 lj,,~~ (2) the development was wate~ dependent/water related and thgus .
. t--' l}"~ exempt from the setback requuement; or (3) a variance to the setback
was justified. Decision anticipated on August 4th if pdor indication
holds firm. .
28. August 4, 1988
a. Spoke with the Hearings Official at 4:10 p.m.; decision will not be
available until Monday. Hearings Official said that both the special use
permit and Greenway development permit would be approved. Hearings
Official did not accept the change of use argument; however. he did
agree that the development was water dependent arid exempt from the
setback requirement. .
29. August 8, 1988
a. Received decisions of the Hearings Official approving both the special
use permit for a golf Course in an EFU zone and the Greenway develop-
ment permit. Dedication of a bicycle trait not required; use classified
as water dependent and thus not subject to 100-foot setback require-
ment.
30. August 19,1988
a. Expiration of appeal period on special use permit and greenway
development permit; no appeal filed.
31. August 24~ 1988
a. Learned from De.bbie Jeffries that flood hazard special use permit had
not yet been issued.
'- \ ; ..
.'<1
It
Riveridge Golf Course
Chronological Summary
Page 13
32. August 25. 1988
a. Spoke with Kieth Ellingsen at Land Management Division concerning.
. status of flood hazard special use permit. He indicated that it was
ready to be issued but that George Currin had left county employment
on August i9thand the file had not yet been assigned to anyone. He
promised to bring it to Jim Mann's attention;
. 33. August 30. 1988
a. Checked with Kieth Ellingsen at 4:30 p.m; The flood hazard special use
permit still had not been assigned to anyone by Jim Mann. Kieth said
he would be at the coast the following day, but would try to get it
issued on September 1st.
34. September 2, 1988
a. Received a call from Keith Ellingsen; he wants a computation of the
volume of material that will be moved within the floodway.
b. Called Tom Poage .to have computation prepared.
It 35. September 19. 1988
a. Tom Poage submitted requested computation.
36~ . September 23. 1988
a. Received copy of approval of flood plain special use permit.
b. LAND USE APPROVAL PROCESS COMPLETED
Attachments
1.. 07/06/88 Memorandum from city requesting bicycle trail dedication
2. 07/22/88 Memorandum from city wfthdrawing request
3, 07/27/88 MeIllorandum ftom county c()ncerning dedication & setback
4. 07/28188 Appli'cants' response to dedication issue .
5. 08/02/88 Applicants' response to setback issue
6. 08/08/88 Hearings Official's decisio.n appro\>ing application
t
Appendix C
Message
Page 1 of 1
Debbie Jeffries
,-~. ,~.~~~:l"'~.I'i'\l"...............~~.....,...~~"", ,..~<>._..",.""".o(~""""""~~~ ..... ,<:,..(,L,>......~."':.-'.~~....^.~~~-:-';"'>:__.>'n-l>_......~~,.<<.^...,....... .
From: RINER Andrea G [Andrea.G.RINER@cLeugene.or.usJ
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 200510:59AM
To: Debbie Jeffries
Subject: RE: County Planning of Parks and City PROS plan
Ms. Jeffries:
Celia Barry of Lane County forwarded your e-mail requesting Information about our Comprehensive Plan. I will attach a link to the
draft plan, WhiCh is on the park's website, Other documents relating to the planning process are also available. Please look It over
and let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to discuss any concerns about the plan's recommendations.
This planning process has been going on since Summer 2002. We have conducted an extensive pUblic Involvement effort to
obtain input from a wide cross-section of Eugene residents. We administered a community-wide survey, held 8 public forums,
several focus groups, and one-on-one interviews and conducted an extensive speakers bureau process. In our third phase of
public involvement we notified all residents via our Eugene Outdoors publication about the draft plan and invited people to prOVide
feedback at any of the six open houses we held through the months of February and March, Future input opportunities are also
planned in conjunction with the plan adoption process.
flook forward to hearing from you.
http://wwW-.-9i.(iyqene.or.us/pl:!!MIPHOS/compplan.htm
Andrea G. Riner
Parks & Open Space Planning Manager
City of Eugene
1820 Roosevelt Blvd.
Eugene, OR 97402
541-682-4909
10/1312005
Message
Page lof:
Debbie Jeffries
').'''~''''''';'''"'':'''''^.' . .....>>:>>."'.TH....................s-,. "" .4.<Q<X>.
<<,.(.~, ~~.",;y'......... .' >",...."'.""..""..oI'~nJ" ..,.). ;.'W.W~~.~ ...<(,.e.x.....;....1 , .,>"..~...^....~~~
From: RINER Andrea G [Andrea.G.R1NER@cl.eugene.oLusj
Sent: Friday, March 18,200512:37 PM
To~ Debbie Jeffries
Subject: RE: PROS
MIG (Moore lacofano Goltsman, Inc.) is 8: planning/public involvement/landscape architecture firm here in Eugene.
-----Original Message-~---
From: DebbIe Jeffries [mailto~DJeffries@riverrlclgeor.com]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:48 AM
To: RINER Andrea G
Subject: RE~ PROS
Thanks - who is MIG
---Original Message-----
From: RINER Andrea G {mallto:Andrea,G.RINER@d.eugene,or,us]
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:21 AM
To: Debbie Jeffries
Subject: RE: PROS
Ms. Jeffries,
Our consultant, MIG, provided that data. I have a request in to them to see if additional detailed data is readily
available, and can let you know when I hear back. Thanks.
---Original Message---h
From: Debbie Jeffries [mailto:DJeffries@riverridgeor.com]
sent: FridaYI March 18t 2005 9:37 AM
To: RINER Andrea G
Subject: RE: PROS
I am interested in the Comparison Tools date used in Table 2 Park & open Space Standards and Anticipated
Need. Would you teU me where are could review the Historic NRPA Standards, Oregon Average Standards
and Average Standards for Comparable Cities. I would like to become familiar wIth the numbers that produced
these statistics.
Debbie Jeffries
n---Orlglnal Message-----
From: RINER Andrea G [mai1to:Andrea.G.RINER@ci.eugene.or.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 20053:27 PM
To: Debbie Jeffries
Subject: RE: PROS
Thanks for these great comments.
1. In future notifications we will work to make sure that we've included folks outside of the UGB with a
vested interest in the plan.
2. I believe we have a strategy that describes a land acquisition process that strongly emphasizes
working with willing sellers as a preference, and can work to make this language more evident in the
plan.
3. Unfortunately, we did not have the fundIng to address the various ways that private recreation
providers are contributing to recreation for area residents, but we do recognize this value. Please
indicate what you feel would be a good way to acknowledge the RiverRidge course, and possibly other
golf courses, without making it look like we are assuming any authority over your facility.
4. The plan does not make any assumptions about the UGB expanding. We do include
10113/2005
Message
Page 2of2
recommendations .that go beyond our UGH which would obviously require working in partnership with
other agencies 00 further planning and impfementation. The City has done limited acquisition outside of
the UGB for specific purposes, including the Airport, Spencer Butte, and other segments of the Ridgeline
Trail, and these have been included in previous plans adopted by Council.
5. As' stated before, we did not mean to recommend acquisition of a continuous strip of land on either
side of the WilIametteRiver. We will work to clarify what is described by the linear park proposal in the
final plan to better address the concerns of private property owners.
--h-Original Message-----
From: Debbie Jeffries [maHto:DJeffries@liverridgeor.com]
Sent: WednesdaYt March 09{ 2005 2:46 PM
To: RINER Andrea G
Subject: PROS
Thank you for the information. I'm not sure I need to meet with you now as much as give you my
position, which will also be submitted for public testimony.
IMe J~sue of PYQUP Involvement
I realize that you have probably had numerous notices to Eugene residents, workshops, etc.
However, you need to remember that the RiverRidge golf course property identified on the map
as part of a Unear park is not only not in the City of Eugene, it is not in the UGB area.
Consequently, there is no reason to be notified. Unless a property owner such as myself is sent
information stating that my river front property is being included in a City funded study, there is
nothing that would trigger my concern that it is. This is probably the single most important issue
for Staff to understand.
I resent having to spend my time to discuss my position on the future use of my property
with government staff that do not represent me and do not have jurisdiction over this
property.
Ihe River to Rkjges Study
Page 29 of this report lists the implementation strategies. The #1 strategy is "Rely on voluntary
participation of property owners when acquiring land.... A key objective '" is to devise strategies
that w!!1Jlot infringelJP-Q(l the rights QtQLQQerty own~rS_~!:Lq_wHl stre@.~tYQ!!Jmfl.lY
particiDa~jOI1." Obviously the City's PROS report uses the LCOG map with "linear parks" on my
property, but the report somehow omitted the #1 implementation strategy.
Hi~tOJY_Qf the Goff Coy,rse"permit Proce$A
It is also frustrating that the City of Eugene refuses to acknowledge the existence of approx. 1 SO
acres of golf course (whiCh is another type of recreational open space) that has been built and
maintained wittt private money. The golf course is recognized by the National Audubon Society
as a Cooperative Sanctuary. We have planted over 1100 trees in more than 100 species. The
Course extends to the WiHamette Rivers edge. The point is the property is developed with
millions of dollars of private funds. We provide a recreational service to the entire community.
Your report only identifies and acknowledges the public sectors contribution.
Ih~_.QQffiQrehensiy~_et9.n is a broa9~p..!!1l!1_Whlch describ~~J~jrlY generaLgQfl.J~JQI_ parks,
recrel!tiorl.fl.J1d open spac~ foctlle future.
The narrative states that this is a 20 year projection. Is this to mean that the UGB will be
expanded to reflect the City of Eugene having jurisdiction over the area reflected in this report?
The City can't very well develop a Park with City money that isn't in the City's jurisdiction ~ can it?
Any approval of this draft as it exists by the City Planning Commission or the Council should
mean that they are endorsing an expansion of the UGB.lf they do not, then that portion whlch is
outside of the City UGB (and jurisdiction) should be removed from the PROS Comp Plan Draft,
Availability 9Lthe Property .In Question (Rfv~rflidge Golf Court?~)
This property is not available for purchase, at any price, by the City of Eugene and will not be in
the next 20 years the PROS plan addresses.
Please put my name on the list to notify of any future discussion on this draft including pubUc
hearings.
10/13/2005
Message
.
Page 3 of3
If you have any questions, feel free to call.
Deborah P. Jeffries
Rivel'Ridge Golf Complex
3800 North Delta Highway
Eugene, OR 97408
541-345-9160 ext. 100
---Original Message-----
From: RINER Andrea G [maifto:Andrea.G.RINER@cLeugene.or.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 12:45 PM
To: Debbie Jeffries
SUbject: RE: New contact submitted for Andrea Riner
If you have a day in mind for an appointment. let me know and I should have some
available times for that date.
I Just want to assure you that the linear park delineation does not infer land acquisition nor
public access. It simply recognizes the high priority that we've heard expressed for a parks
and recreation system that is strongly grounded in our .livers and ridges". We would want
to look at a range of options in order to work with property owners and other stakeholders
as to the best way to accomplish this. Options may include water trails (boating routes
between select public open space areas), land trails, conservation easements, private
partnerships, etc. It absolutely does not require solid public ownership of land on one or
both sides of the river.
The Comprehensive Plan is a broad plan which describes fairly general goals for parks,
recreation and open space for the future. Any specific projects that would be implemented
following plan adoption would also have to go through their own set of public involvement
efforts. Also, the recommendation for the linear park in the current plan is taken directly
from two pre-existing documents. One is the recent "Rivers to Ridges. regional parks and
open space study (lCOG June 2003), and the other is the Eugene Parks and Recreation
Plan that was adopted by City Council in 1989.
We are hoping to get to the Planning Commission in May, but I don't believe a date has
been set I can let you know when I have an exact date, but there will also be public
notification.
---.Original Message-----
From: Debbie Jeffries [maitto:djeffries@riverlidgeor.com]
Sent: TuesdaYI March 08,2.0059:29 AM
To: Andrea Riner.
Subject: New contact submitted for Andrea Riner
Contact Date: 3/8/2005
Contact Time: 9:29:20 AM
Referring page: www.ci.eugene.or.us/PARKS!PROS/compplan.htm
From: Debbie Jeffries
To: Andrea Riner
Message:
I would like to make an appointment to speak to you about the PROS
plan. Our property (RiverRidge Golf Course) is identiffed as having a
linear park along the river. Also would like to know when this Draft will
be discussed by the Planning Commission. Thanks
10/13/2005
Debbie Jeffries
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
RINER Andrea G [Andrea.G.RINER@cl.eugene.or.usl
Tuesday, March 29. 2005 11 :01 AM
Debbie Jeffries
FW: Comparable Cities info
Comparable Otles
Table 1_20_0...
Ms. Jeffries:
This is a follow-up to your earlier e-mail requesting additional information about the
standards analysis that was conducted as part of the PROS Comprehensive Plan process.
Attached is a table that eXplains the comparable cities totals.
The Oregon Average Standards is MIG's proprietary database of 45 cities they surveyed in
Oregon between 1992 and now. They do not release this information except to provide
totals as a general means of comparison.
1
~ I
~ s :s
2
I ~ ~ ~ g
~ ~ ""
.!;; .50 S; ~ ~ ~
P- I 11 r>
" ~ .& "
-gO) ~ ~ '" -g
&~ 9 tl
jg ]I ~ a1 i ~ j}
f~ 0. i g n
0 0 ~
~ u ~
<: tt
~ ~
::E '0
$ ". <.!)
f:J ~
~ ~ I c: ;:
" ~ " ~.~ E
~ ! -as a;o i
~ ., "'t
.c
2 8 R f~ ~alh~
~ Ii: a f ~ 'c d:: tI
~ ! ~ j 15 -~ "'~~[
~ g~ !aQ. ~
c:
~
i
~
~
8
i~
I!
11
il~
1-<rI
ogi
of
~l8
~
Ii
I
~
11
E
~
'R;
e
'"
. -'
;
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.
777 PEARL ST.
.
EUGENE. OREGON 97401
.
511~rfe;t? ~ M E M 0 RAN DUM
~H~; J6'FF~CS'>
ID .ll .4 $
07/22/88
TO: Lane County Heari~Qs Offi c ia 1
FROM: Eugene Planning Department
,SUBJECT: Bike@ath Dedicationror River Ridge Golf Course
On July 6. 1988. the City of Eugene (Planning Department and Transportation
Division) drafted amemoranduin to the lane County Hearings Official in re..
sponse to an application to Lane County for approval of an IS-hole gQlf
course. The response indicated that, inordar to comply with TransPlan and
the Willamette Greenwaycriter1a contained in the lane. Code Section
16.254(a){ii), the City recommended that Lane County require the applicant to
dedicate a bikeway along the east bank of the Willamette RiVer. At the
public hearing which was held to review this golf course request (00 July 6,
19a5), Lane County Planning staff incorporated the City's memorandum and'
recommendation into the record. However. due to a number of unresolved
details regarding this recommendation. the Hearings Official left the public
record open until JUly 28. 1988 so that the City. County. and applicant could
attempt to reach agreement and resolution on the proposed bikeway. Since the
July 6, 1985 hearing date, the City of Eugene has had the opportunity to
review its recommendation for a bikeway and, based upon the following analy..
sis and findings. is retracting its initial recommendation for an east bank
bikepath: .
The initial memo referred to the Bicycle System Map in TransPlan and
text contained on Pagel8. The Bicycle System Map ,does indicate a
bikeway (referred to as an "independent path"....Route'223 1n TransPlan)
extending from Beltl1ne Road. through the subject property, north to the
confluence of. the Wi11amette and McKenzie Rivers, and east to Armitage
Park. TransPlan depicts a generalized bicycle route from Eugene's urban
fringe to the outlying rural lands in Lane County. At this time, a
specifiC bicycle route has not yet been deSigned for the area of this
request. This being the case, it would be difficult to require a
bikeway dedication along the river since the exact location of the path
is unknown.
As a further complication. the Metropolitan Area General Plan Oiagram
designates the area to the north and south of the subject property for
Sand and gravel use. Currently, both these areas (to the north and
south of the site) are being actively used for sand and gravel opera-
tions and extraction. Given the eXisting land use.and designatiooof
these properties (to the north and south of the proposed golf course).
it is not possible at this tim~ to foresee how a bicycle path along the
east bank of the subject property would connect to any e.xi st i 09. or
future system. The closest existing bicycle easement to the subject
property is within the City limits of Eugene, just north of the Owasso
Bridge. (Thhpath has not yet been improved to this point but the City
has acquired the necessary ded1cation).
.~
It is important to note that thiscise is distinctly different from
examples within the City limits of Eugene where bikeway dedications are
acquired along the Greenway. In these cases, exact routes have been
designed and there are points of connection to existing adjacent paths.
There is also a more route specific deSign for paths within the City of
Eugene as identified in the Eugene Bikeways Master Plan. This is not
the case for the rural lands outside of the urban growth boundary.
Furthermore, throughout the text of Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals
(Goal 1l5-..Wn 1 amette River Greenway) there are generalized references
made which draw a distinction between rural and urban lands as they
pertain to the issue of greenway access. An example of this is found on
page 14 of the Statewide Goals, Section3b(4)(c) where it states that
"adequate public access to the river shall be provided for, with empha~
s1$ on urban and urbanlzable areas". The subject property is neither
urban nor urbanizable since 1t 11es outs1deof the c.ity limits and urban
growth boundary of Eugene. Therefore, the acquisition of urban bikeways
along the river can be considered as being distinctly different from a
rural bikeway acquisition along the rher.
As part of the City of -Eugene's portion of the review of this proposed
golf course, the applicant was required to dedicate an additional 30
feet of ri9ht-ot~way for North DeltatHghway (making the right~of~way a
total of 60 feet). This condition was fulfilled by the applicant. The
City currently has plans to strip a blcyclepath along North Delta
Highway from Beltl ine to Ayres Road (at such time as N. Delta Hwy is
improved). Given the additional 30 feet of right..ot..way dedication ac..
qUired along N. Delta Hwy by the applicant. 1t will be possible to
extend this bicycle route along North Delta Highway (parallel to the
river and the subject property). Therefore. this bicycle route can be
seen as' meeting the TransPlan requirement for a overall route which will
provide access north of Beltltne Road} to the confluence of the rivers,
and eventually, east to Armitage Park.
o cc: Diane Bishop. Eugene Transportation Division
Jerry Kendall. lane County Planning
Jim Saul
~
Home Builders
A ss 0 C I A T I 8 It
of Lane County
October 8~ 2005
President Lawless
Eugene Planning Commission
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 9740 I
Dear President Lawless and Commissioners,
The Home Builders Association of Lane County and the Homebuilders Construction
Company thank the Eugene. staff and the Eugene Planning Commission for this
opportunity to provide input on the proposed Eugene parks refinement plan. I apologize
in advance fOf the length of these comments~ but the implications of the refinement plan
adoption are numerous and complicated.
The HBA and HCC beliyve the refinement plan is inconsistent with the Metro Plan in the
following manners:
I. The Proposed Refmement Plan is inconsistent with the Metro Plan because it
proposes to expand the Metro Plan's Goal 8 planning area into lands
presently included in the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan without
following the required amendment process.
The planning area for Eugene's proposed refinement plan is shown on Map 1 of
Appendix B. The proposed planning area extends well beyond the Eugene UGB and the
metro plan diagram - west to Fern Ridge Reservoir~ north to Coburgand beyond, and
south to Goshen and Spenser Creek. Much of the proposed planning area extends into
rural Lane County that is currently part of the Rural Lane County Comprehensive Plan.
This conflicts with the metro plan.
Section F of the Introduction ofthe Metro Plan entitled Relationship to Lane County
Rural Comprehensive Plan states:
The boundaries of the Metropolitan Area General Plan are adjacent to the
boundaries of the Lane County General Plan that surround the Eugene.Springfield
metropolitan area. There is not overlap between the boundaries of the
2053 Laura Street Springfjeldf OR 97477 (541) 484-5352 FAX: (541) 484-5386
Metropolitan Area General Plan and that ofllie Lane County General Plan
(emphasis added).
Adjustments to boundaries may occur in the future so that areas previously a part
of one plan are covered under another plan. These adjustments may occur using
the Plan review and amendment procedures described in Chapter IV.
Section IV of the Metro Plan explains how the metro plan is to be reviewed and
amended. For example, Objective 3 is to: "Prepare refinement and functional plans that
supplement the Metropolitan Area General Plan", Specifically, under that objective,
refinement plans are limited to providing more detail to the Metro Plan, not the Lane
County Rural Comprehensive Plan.
Section IV, Policies (3)(a) provides that:
A Type I amendment shall include any change to the urban growth boundary or
the jurisdictional boundary of the Plan; any change that requires a goal exception
under statewide planning Goal 2 that is not related to the UGB expansion: and any
amendment to the Plan text that is non-site specific.
The proposed refinement plan does include a change in the jurisdiction boundary of the
Plan, extending the planning area of the metro area for Goal 8 (Recreation) beyond its
current jurisdictional boundary. Under the definition section of the Metro Plan, Plan
Boundary:
Defines that area shown on the Plan diagram that includes Springfield, Eugene,
and unincorporated urban, urbanizable, rural, and agricultural land exclusive of
areas encompassed in the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan. (Note:
Assumes boundariesbetween the area of the Metro Plan and the Lane County
Rural Comprehensive Plan will coincide) (emphasis added).
An examination of the Metro Plan diagram clearly shows that the proposed Eugene Park
Refinement Plan area exceeds the plan boundary ofthe metro plan and includes land
encompassed by the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan.
Policies (5)(a) provides:
All three governing bodies must approve non-site specific text amendments; site
specific diagram amendments that involve a UGB or Plan boundary change that
crosses the Willamette or McKenzie Rivers or that crosses over a ridge into a new
basin; and, amendments that involve a goal exception not related to a UGB
expansion.
The proposed expansion of Eugene's Goal 8 planning area constitutes a plan boundary
change that crosses the WilIamette River to the east, the McKenzie River to the north,
and crosses south over a ridge into a new basin.
2
Section IV, Policies (6) requires:
Public hearings by the governing bodies for Metropolitan Plan amendments
requiring participation from one or more jurisdictions shaH be held within 120
days of the initiation date. Metropolitan Plan amendments that require a final
decision from all three governing bodies shall be concluded within J 80 days of
the initiation date. When more than one jurisdiction participates in the decision,
the planning commissions of the participating jurisdictions shall conduct ajoint
public hearing and forward that record and their recommendations to their
respective elected officials. The elected officials also shall conduct a joint public
hearing prior to making a final decision. The time frames prescribed in
connection with Type n Metropolitan Plan amendment processes can be waived if
the applicant agrees to the waiver.
The requirement for joint hearings of the necessary jurisdictions is so that there will be a
single record upon which all of the parties are basing their recommendations and
decisions. Despite this requirement, only the Eugene planning commissioners are present
at this hearing on the expanded plan boundary. Instead, the Lane County planning
commission is scheduled to hold a separate hearing at a later date.
Section IV of the Metro Plan also provides a diagram of the process for adopting metro
plan refinements and regulatory measures. The text on the diagram explains:
This special process is established for referral and reviews to the metro plan
(neighborhood plans, special area studies, etc.) and regulatory measures (zoning
measures, etc.) initiated by one or more of the jurisdictions. In most
circumstances (emphasis in the original document), refinement plans are
consistent with the metro plan and do not require a plan amendment... The plan
amendment process applies only when Metro Plan refinements or regulatory
measures result in specific Metro Plan amendments being initiated.
The proposed refinement plan clearly faUs within the exception process for the adoption
of refinement plans because it proposes an amendment to the Plan boundary for Goal 8
planning. Staff s consistent response to concerns about the planning area expansion is
that there is no problem as long as no regulations are to be imposed on the newly
included area. The amendment process, as cited above, applies in two circumstances;
when either the refinements or regulatory measures result in specific Metro Plan
amendments being initiated. In this case, the refinement plan would clearly amend the
Metro Plan jurisdictional boundary.
In summary, the proposed expansion of Eugene's GoalS planning area is inconsistent
with the Metro Plan because (1) it causes the Metro Plan and the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan to overlap and the boundaries to no longer coincide; and (2) it
proposes a Plan boundary change for purposes of Goal 8 planning by the City of Eugene
without following metro plan procedures for amending the metro plan.
3
ll. The Eugene Parks Refinement Plan's proposed park land acquisitions
are inconsistent with the Metro Plan fmdings and policies.
Appendix B, Table B-1, of the proposed parks refinement plan defines Eugene's Goal 8
Parks and Open Space Standards and Anticipated Need, and the subsequent impact on the
local land supply. The two columns under Net Need identify the amount of additional
land required within the current UGB to meet the anticipated park need - 307.42 acres to
provide for the additional needs of current residents and 1,316.04 acres to provide for the
needs of future residents - a total of 1,623.46 acres. The proposed project plan and list
are not included in the refinement plan but are attached to these comments as Appendix
B. All proposed land acquisitions are to be acquired in the next ten years - in other
words, during the planning period covered by the current Metro Plan and Residential
Land Study.
The Metro Plan is the document providing the framework within which detailed
refinement plans are prepared (Metro Plan Principals, page II-I). As noted above,
refinement plans must be consistent with the Metro Plan.
Section III-A ofthe Metro Plan, entitled "Residential Land Use and Housing Element",
incorporates the findings and policies relating to Goal 10 Housing. The table on II-A-3
shows the amount of surplus low-density residentia1land within the UGB as 940 acres,
medium density surplus of239 acres, and 60 acres of surplus high density residential, for
a total residential land surplus of 1,238 acres. This is the surplus acreage in 1995 for both
Eugene and Springfield. Those numbers do not take into account any loss of acreage due
to subsequent plan amendments or legislative zone changes since 1995. Nor does it
account for land developed since 1995.
Eugene's Goal 5 impact on the metro area's residential land supply, which is currently
before the Eugene city council for adoption, shows a low and high demand residential
surplus as depicted in the table below (the background report for GoalS impacts on the
land supplies are attached to these comments as Appendix A). Again, these land
surpluses apply to all ofthe metro area, not simply Eugene.
e UPP1Y III xcess 0 eman a ef san oa
Residential Low Density Medium High Density Total
Density
Low Demand 1,054.04 244.78 32.51 1,331.33
Hi2h Demand 127.04 126.78 5.51 259.33
NtS I' E
fD
d ft PAPA dG 15
It is obvious from the Goal 5 background materials that there is an insufficient amount of
land in all three residential categories to accommodate the needed park lands.
The Goal 5 background analysis also indicates there are only 85 acres of surplus
commercial land in the metro area (Appendix A-9). Industrial lands are typically
considered incompatible with park land and thus parks are not a permitted use on
industrial lands. In addition, use of industrial land for other uses other than limited
4
mixing of office, commercial, and industrial uses is discouraged under the metro plan
(see policies under Economic Element, IU.B).
The land needed under the Eugene parks refinement plan would only be taken from
vacant land available in Eugene's UGB or outside the metro UGB - any land surpluses in
Springfield's UGB would presumably not be impacted by this refinement plan. The
question that must then be addressed is how much surplus land does Eugene have
available for parks? Can the 1,623.46 acres needed for parks under this refinement plan
be accommodated using surplus land supplies within Eugene's current UGB? Ifnot, does
the Eugene Refinement Plan meet the requirements of a parks master plan that would
permit the establishment of local parks outside the UGB? The short answer to both
questions is no. (The latter question will be discussed below.) The amount of land
needed for park acquisition in the refinement plan is inconsistent with the Goal 9 and
Goal 10 resources available in the Metro Plan.
llI. The Eugene Parks Refmement Plan is inconsistent with the Metro Plan
because the proposed park facilities are not included in the plan.
The proposed plan will be an element of the comprehensive plan. As such it must
include a plan for future recreation facilities. As discussed below, the requirement to
include future facility projects in the plan is based on the nature of a comprehensive plan,
state statutes and rules for preparing plans for parks, and in the1anguage of the Metro
Plan itself. This draft fails to meet this requirement. Here the future parks projects have
been excised from the plan and put in a second document, which is not intended to be
part ofthe adopted plan, and will not be adopted through the land use process (Proposed
projects and maps of anticipated acquisitions I developments are attached as Appendix
B).
Nature of "comprehensive plan" includes future projects and mapping: This
refinement plan will be an element of the comprehensive plan for the Metro area. What
constitutes a "comprehensive plan" is defined by statute. See ORS 197.015(5). By
definition, a comprehensive plan must include "policy statements" and ''maps'' relating to
proposed "recreational facilities." This draft includes a map of existing park facilities,
but it does not show the location of proposed park projects. That map has been relegated
to a second document not proposed to be a part of the plan. This draft describes the
current park inventory, but it does not describe what specific projects will be added in the
future. Again, that information has been put in a second document that will not be a part
of the plan. The City has the infonnation needed to make this a comprehensive plan in
the meaning of the statute, but it is proposing to exclude that information from the plan.
Statutes and rules for park planning require future projects and mapping: This
parks planning effort is subject to state statutes and LCDC rules for parks planning. The
draft put forward by staff does not meet the minimum state requirements in many
respects.
5
The 1997 parks planning statute appears at ORS 195.120 to 195.125. The LCDC adopted
implementing rules for the statute. Those rules appear at OAR Chapter 660, Division 34~
The parks planning statute explains that local parks that are developed on forest and
agricultural resourCe land need to take an exception to the statewide planning goals
unless the parks are developed under an acknowledged parks master plan that is made a
part of the comprehensive plan and implementing regulations. The LCDC rules spell out
the essential requirements of a parks master plan.
In summary, a local park master plan that qualifies for an exemption for the Goal 3 and 4
exception requirement must:
· Include a plan map designation which indicates the location and boundaries
of the local parks;
· Include appropriate zoning categories and map designations
· Include objective land use and siting review criteria
· Protect areas of important natural resources in the park from inappropriate
park use and development.
· Protect areas of important cultural resources in the park from inappropriate
park use and development
· Provide public recreation opportunities and facilities, including
interpretive opportunities and facilities.
· Manage the natural resources in the park.
· Manage the cultural resources in the park.
· Manage the scenic resources in the park.
· Interpret natural and cultural resources in the park
· Avoid or mitigate significant impacts from adjacent land uses on park
uses, facilities and resources.
· Avoid or mitigate significant impacts from park uses and facilities on local
public services and local and state transportation systems.
· Avoid or mitigate significant impacts from park uses on adjacent land uses
· Comply with the state land use goals.
· Achieve compatibility with the comprehensive plans of affected local
governments.
The draft parks refinement plan before the Planning Commission falls far short of the
minimum state requirements. As relevant here, the plan fails to include a map of the
boundaries of the proposed parks, and fails to identify appropriate zoning categories and
map designations for the parks.
The impacts of these omissions are significant. Eugene has already developed public
parks on resource land outside the UGB in rural Lane County. This includes portions of
the Ridgeline Trail Park. These parks are developed without the benefit of the county
land use approvals required for parks on resource land. If the City hopes to ever make
such existing parks legal) or to add to these parks as stated in this draft refinement plan,
6
the City will need to have a master park plan that meets the state requirements. The
present draft does not attempt to meet the necessary criteria.
The Parks and Recreation Facilities Element of the Metro Plan (In-H) speaks to policies
that apply to park facilities in the metro area. The first thing to note is the title of this
element - Park and Recreation Facilities Element (emphasis added). Just as the Public
Facilities and Services Element of the Metro Plan speaks to actual facilities, so does the
Park and Recreation Facilities Element of the Metro Plan.
The findings under this element of the metro plan describe the components that should be
found in a detailed metropolitan-wide parks and recreation analysis and plan:
a. The development of a complete inventory of park and recreation facilities, the
development oflocal standards for use by the local governing bodies in
determining the type and level of parks and facilities that are needed, the
development of demand effectiveness measurements, and the development of
capital improvements programming and other implementation strategies.
b. Indication of how much land is needed for each type of park (regional,
community, neighborhood, etc.), and indication of what types of activities
should be provided in each park (e.g. active recreational opportunities such as
ball fields, tennis courts, and playgrounds vs. passive recreational
opportunities such as hiking trails.
c. Indication of how the resources ofthe local and state park agencies can be
coordinated and maximized in order for each agency to provide the level and
type of recreational opportunities for which it is best suited.
d. Indication of where the advance purcha..<;e of park land should occur in
anticipation of future demand.
The following Metro-Plan policies reflect those findings:
1. Develop a system of regional-metropolitan activity areas ba..<;ed on a facilities
Plan (emphasis added) for the metropolitan area that includes acquisition,
development, and management programs. The Plan and system should
include reservoir and hill parks, the Willamette Greenway, and other river
corridors.
2. Local parks and recreation plans and analyses shall be prepared by each
jurisdiction and coordinated on a metropolitan level.
The Eugene parks refinement plan is such a plan as is required under the Metro Plan
policies. There is nothing in the Metro Plan that suggests that local park plans should
meet lesser criteria than a metro facilities plan. It is relevant to compare the parks
refinement plan with the list of necessary plan components described in the findings.
7
The development of a complete inventory of park and recreation facilities, the
development of local standards for use by the local governing bodies in
determining the type and level of parks and facilities that are needed, the
development of demand effictiveness measurements, and the development of
capital improvements programming and other implementation strategies.
Chapter I of the refinement plan discusses the community needs assessment. Chapter VI
describes the perfonnance measurements. Appendix B of the refinement plan contains a
map and detailed inventory of Eugene's existing parks and open spaces. It also contains
a chart of park and open space standards and anticipated need by park type and level of
facilities. The chart also contains the development of demand effective measurements by
detennining the amount of facilities need to serve anticipated future demand.
Implementation strategies other than capital improvement programming are found in
Chapter V.
Indication of how much land is needed for each type of park (regional,
community, neighborhood, etc.), and indication of what types of activities
should be provided in each park (e.g. active recreational opportunities such
as ball fields, tennis courts, and playgrounds vs. passive recreational
opportunities such as hiking trails.
The indication of how much land is needed for each type of park is found in Table B-1 of
Appendix B. What types of activities should be provided in each park is detailed in
Appendix A which describes each type of park in depth.
Indication of how the resources of the local and state park agencies can be
coordinated and maximized in order for each agency to provide the level and
type of recreational opportunities for which it is best suited
While the state park agencies are not specifically identified as a partner, the refinement
plan makes numerous references to working with partner agencies as a goal.
Additionally, there are no longer state parks within the Metro Plan boundary.
Indication of where the advance purchase of park land should occur in
anticipation o.ffuture demand. .
This is where the refinement plan falls short. The refinement plan gives no indication of
where the advance purchase of park land should occur - either for existing residents or
for anticipated growth. Neither does the refinement plan include capital improvement
programming. Originally, both park acquisition and development were included in the
draft refinement plan. Detailed colored maps were included that showed where future
parks will be located. Detailed tables listed the proposed projects. The park projects and
the maps showing approximate locations ofland acquisitions were included when the
PROS conunittee finished its work. They were included when the draft refinement plan
was submitted to the council last December as a preview to the comp plan amendment.
8
They were included during all of the public participation process. It is only in about the
last month that the seven pages of proposed park projects have been removed from the
. plan. It is only in the last month that the colored maps showing future land acquisitions
have been removed from the plan.
Why is it important to include the capital improvement projects and land acquisition sites
in the refinement plan as described in the Metro Plan findings? Because land acquisition
and the subsequent use are land use decisions that impact available land supplies and
should, therefore, be before the planning commission. By removing the project list from
consideration and by removing the maps showing where it is anticipated that land will be
acquired, the land use element has been removed from the land use planning process.
As noted above, Appendix B, Table B-1, shows an anticipated acquisition of 1623.46 for
parks and open space. How much of the 1623.46 acres will be taken from Eugene's
residential land supply? How much will be taken from Eugene's commercial and
industrial supplies? There is simply no way to know now that the maps have been
removed from the plan. (New neighborhood parks would not impact the residential land
supply because deductions were made for neighborhood parks in the 1999 Residential
Land Supply. Acquisition for other types of park: land (community, regional, lineal,
urban plazas, etc.) would presumably come out of residential or commercial land
supplies.) The project list and maps will be physically inserted into the refinement plan
as Appendix C after the refinement plan and the project list / maps have been adopted
through separate processes. There is a great deal of irony in that the very pieces of the
original refinement plan that have a tangible impact on local land use are being removed
from the land use process.
The following analysis provides an example of how a map of approximate acquisition
sites allows the public and the commissioners to identify the potential impact on land
supplies. The council, when it considers the project list, will receive a map of the Bethel
I Danebo Planning Area (attached in Appendix B) which identifies a proposed Natural
Area Park Acquisition south of Royal Avenue and northeast of the multi-use path along
the Amazon ChanneL On the metro plan diagram, that area has a plan designation oflow
density residential and was included in the parcel inventory for the 1999 Residential Land
Supply (attached as Appendix C). The acquisition of that land will impact Goal 10
resources that are an adopted part of the comp plan. However, through the process
envisioned by staff, there will be no accountability for the loss ofthose low density
residential acres.
The reason staff has consistently given for removing the actual projects from the
refinement plan is to keep the project list as a living, fluid document - to keep
spontaneity and flexibility in the parks process. However, loss of spontaneity and
flexibility are the expected downsides to our type ofland use system. Ask Eugene Sand
and Gravel or Peacehealth how spontaneous our land use system is. As any private
developer ifhe or she would like more flexibility than our land use system allows. Our
land use system requires that jurisdictions make ultimate policy choices through the comp
plan process to identify the best use of every parcel of ground in the state of Oregon.
9
Changing those land uses is indeed burdensome, costly, and usually frustrating. We
understand staffs desire to avoid making land use decisions in order to simplify their
future procedures. We understand, but we do not agree. The public sector must comply
with our land use process as much as the private sector. Staffis proposing that 1,623.46
acres be acquired for public use and much of the land will come from land with
residential plan designations or zoning or will come from lands outside the UGB for
which no master park plan has been developed. That is inconsistent with the Metro Plan
and state statutes.
IV. The Refmement Plan is inconsistent with the Metro Plan because it does not
take recreational facilities and open space owned by other public entities or
by private parties into account.
In response to questions from the commissioners at the Monday work session, staff said
that they had made a conscious decision to only include city owned land in the parks and
open space inventory. Their explanation was that there is no guarantee that private
recreation and open space would be held in that usage in perpetuity. Such a guarantee is
not a reasonable requirement. Each new park refinement plan (presumably every 20
years) will include a new inventory. If park land is converted to another use during a
planning period, that would simply be reflected in the new inventory. The Metro Plan
requires that private recreation facilities and open space be considered in the park
planning process.
Under the Parks and Recreation Facilities Element ofthe Metro Plan~ numerous
references are made to the inclusion of private facilities. Under the description of the
different types of parks, for example, Special Recreational Facilities are defined as
follows: Special recreational facilities include, for example, public and private golf
courses, tennis courts, and swimming poots (emphasis added). It goes on to say:
In addition, the park and recreation agencies and the metropolitan school districts
have combined their resource and coordinated efforts to provide open space and
parks and recreation facilities in conjunction with the schools.
Also, in recent years, private recreational facilities, such as swimming pools and
tennis and racquetball courts, have been developed. Several private golf courses
have been in operation in the community for a number of years.
The findings also speak to the issue:
4. While the NRP A standards provide a useful comparison, they should not
be used as the determinant of the adequacy of the park and recreation
facilities provided by each jurisdiction. A determination of the adequacy
must be based, not only on total acres or facilities, but also on the values
of the residents, the location of park and recreation facilities in relation to
the residents each in intended to serve, the specific function each is .
10
intended to serve and the role private facilities play in providing
recreational facilities (emphasis added).
6. Private recreational facilities supplement and help meet the demand for a
variety of recreational opportunities.
This was furthered in the objectives:
6. Expand opportunities for the development of private recreational facilities.
Lastly, it was incorpomted into the policies:
4. Encourage the development of private recreational facilities.
The consideration of privately owned facilities or land goes beyond swimming pools and
golf courses. It must also be applied to open space (open space is not currently one of the
park types described in the Metro Plan). This would include land owned by groups such
as the Nature Conservancy. It should also include open space provided for in planned
unit develOPments (PUDs) and subdivisions. The development community agrees that
preserving and protecting a reasonable amount of open space in PUDs, for example, is
good public policy. Those hundreds of acres of open space should also be accounted for
in the inventory to reduce the need for additional open space acquisitions by the
taxpayers and future homeowners.
In summary, the Home Builders Association and the Homebuilders Construction
Company believes the Eugene Parks Refinement Plan to be inconsistent with the Eugene
I Springfield Metro Area General Plan in several critical areas.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
/?oXu- ~~.
Roxie Cuellar
Director of Government Affairs
11
A p-peV\d,-x A
4-1
Buildable Lands Inventory Impact Analysis Summary (Aggregated)
1 Total maximum number of acres within which restrictions of Goal 5 regulations 1,568
would apoly under staff recommendation
2 Minus non-tax lotted (e.g., rights of way) areas not included in buildable lands -381
inventories
3 Subtotal 1,187
4 Minus other areas dermed as non-buildable. in the Residential Lands Study -123
5 Subtotal 1,064
6 Minus acres within the 1,064 that are currently zoned PL -427
7 Subtotal 637
8 Minus acres within the 637 that are currently zoned NR (protected wetlands in the -21
West Eugene Wetlands Plan) ,
9 Maximum total reduction in acres of buildable land resulting from proposed Goal 5 616
protections
10 Subtotal zoned/designated residential 446
11 Subtotal zoned commercial 43
12 Subtotal zoned industrial 45
13 Subtotal zoned other 82
14
15 Total acres of the 616 acres (line 9) that are owned 'by the City of Eugene. For 129.6
information onlv-does not affect analvsis of impacts to buildable lands.
Buildable Lands Inventory Acreage Impact Analysis Methodology
1. The area within which the restrictions of the proposed IWR Water Resources Conservation
Overlay Zone would apply were digitally mapped (using data from the Goal 5 wetland, riparian
and upland wildlife habitat inventories and the regional Geographic Information System, and
ArcMap 9.0 software) for each GoalS site or portion of a site, and the recommended setback
distance for each site or portion of a site is reflected in the digital map ("protected area
shapefile") .
a. In nearly every case, the area within which the land use restrictions apply is only a
portion of a parcel to which the Overlay Zone is applied. Therefore, the protected area
shapefile is not a map of affected tax lots, but, rather, a map of those specific portions of
affected tax lots where the restrictions apply.
b. The area shown in the protected area shapefile is the largest possible extent within
which restrictions could apply under the draft IWRprovisions. In many cases the actual
"protected areat> would be smaller based upon exceptions or adjustments allowed in the
draft overlay zone provisions.
c. The protected area.shapefile includes the total protected area within the Eugene UGB
for all resource types combined.
d. The total acreage shown in the protected area shapefile within the Eugene UGB for all
resource types combined is 1~568 acres. This is the maximum possible area of impact
to the entire buildable lands supply (aU three categories). ,
Table 1. Analysis of Maximum Possible Impact on Supply of Commercial Lands within the Eugene Urban Growth
Boundary
Eugene Commercial Lands Study
Surplus Acres t70
Acres Removed from Commercial
Designation by Previous Plan
Amendments -
Maximum Possible Commercial Acres
Impacted by Goal 5 Protection Measures
Remaining Surolus 85.70
I
7s cp
Table 2. Analysis of Maximum Possible Impact on Supply of Industrial.....
.it Metro Area
Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory Report Surplus
Acres
Low Demand Assumption 2954.28
or or
Hiflh .Demand Assumotion 2432.28
Acres Removed from Industrial Designation by Previous
Plan Amendments .,
Eugene -642.30
Springfield* -W.SO
T~tal -733.10
Maximum Possible Industrial Acres Impacted by
Eugene Goal 5 Protection Measures -44.73
Remaining Surplus
Low Demand Assumption 2176.45
or or
Hisrh Demand Assumotion 1654.45
Table 3. Analysis of Maximum Possible Impact on Supply of Residential Lands within the Metro Area
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential
Lands.and Housing Study Surplus Acres
Low Demand Assumption 1862.00
or or
HiJrh Demand Assumption 790.00
Acres Removed from Residential Designation by
Previous Plan Amendments
Eugene -84.90
Springfield* -52.03
Total -136.93
Maximum Possible Residential Acres Impacted by 445.77
Eugene Goal 5 Protection Measures
Remaining Surplus
Low Demand Assumption 1279.30
or or
HiRh Demand Assumption 20730
* Data provided by Springfield City staff.
A - 'Z..-
A-!
Residential Lands
25--Aug"()5
........
Low Density Medium Density High Density Total
(aU categories)
Buildable Land Supply
Metro UGB 4,780.00 828.00 195.6(j 5,803.00
Total
Buildable Land Imuaets
lNet Impact -404.56 -34.42 -6.7S -445.77
ofGoaJ 5
regulations
(acres)
Percentage -8.46% -4.16% -3.48% -7.68%
Impact
Inventory 4,375.44 793.58 188.21 5,357.23
Remaining
(acres)
Buildable Land Demand
Low demand 3;298.00 523.00 120.00 3,941.00
High demand 4,225.00 641. 00 147.00 5,013.00
Net Buildable Land Supply In Excess of Demand After G()al 5 Removal
Low demand 1,077.44 270.58 68.21 1,416.23
High demand 150.44 152.58 41.21 344.23
Buildable Land Impacts from Past Plan Amendments
Net Impact -23.40 -25.80 -35.7() -84.90
of Plan
Amendments
(acres)
Percentage -0.49% -3.12% -18.31% -1.46%
Impact
Inventory 4,352.04 767.7& 152.51 5,272.33
Remaining
(acres)
Buildable Land Demand
Low demand 3,298.00 523.00 . 120.00 3,941.00
High demand 4,225.00 641.00 147.00 5,013.00
Net Supply In Excess of Demand after PAPAs and Goal 5
Low demand 1,054.04 244.78 32.51 1,331.33
High demand 127.04 126.78 5.51 259.33
A -1
13. Created a new shapefile "city.owned.....Prot-bldable.shp'~ by intersecting the dty-owned land layer
with the shapefile "prot-parcel-zone_minus_unbuildJe.shp." This waS used to calculate how many of
the acres in "pfot-parcel-zone _minus _unbuild Je" were owned by the City. This is an informational
item only~ and was not factored into the analysis of impacts to the buildable lands inventory.
14. Created a new shapefile "riverfront.rp....Pfot.shpn by selecting areas in the protected areas shapefile
that wer(': zoned "S.RP Riverfront Park." Intersected this file with the shapefile
"waterPoly _ 4jan05 .shp" (WilIamette River active channel) to create a new shapefile "riverfront-
rp....protJiver-intrsct.shp" that was used to calculate acres zoned S-RP that are within the river.
15. Calculated areas within S-RP setbacks by measuring the frontage on theWillamette River using the
Arc View measure tool~ then multiplying the calculated frontage length by 35 feet, and measuring the
frontage on the Mill Race and multiplying the frontage length by 15 feet.
A-~
2. Some areas that were not considered.buildable by each ofllie three Buildable Lands Inventory
documents were removed from the protected area shapefile for the applicable land use type.
a. Bach of the three inventories included only land within tax lots (parcels) as detailed
below. Therefore, aU non-tax lotted areas (e.g., rights of way) were removed from the
protected area shapefile, since they were not considered buildable in any of the three
inventories.
i. The Metropolitan IndustriaJ Lands Inventory Repor!, July 1993 (p. 46) defines
buildable industrial land as: "vacant land that is free from all of the following
prohibitions to development: tloodway, severe soil constraints, severe slopes,
approved wetland mitigation site or officially protected wetlands and public
ownership (except for the Riverfront Research Park which is considered
buildab Ie)."
1. The analysis was limited to "vacant industrial parcels one acre and
larger" (p. 45), and the resulting inventory did not include any publicly
owned rights-of-way or other publicly-owned, non-tax lotted areas. This
is clearly reflected in the sub-area maps (un-numbered pages following
the end of Appendix C).
ii. The Eugene Commercial Lands Study, October 1992, (p. II-I) defines buildable
commercial land as "parcels that are shown on the Metro Plan Diagram as
appropriate for commercial development (designated commercial) or are
regulated by the City of Bugene so as to allow commerciid uses (zoned
commercially). The base date for the analysis was the January 1986-
Metropolitan Parcel File. From this data base, any tax lot or portion of a tax lot
that was vacant and zoned or designated for commercial use was considered paft
of the commercial buildable land inventory."
iii. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolit~ Area Residential Land and Housing
Study, Supply and Demand Technical Analysis, February 1999 (p. 30) includes
the following definition for residential land: "land that is zoned or designated
residential in the Eugene-Springfield DGB. The data based for this analysis is
the 1992 Metropolitan Parcel File."
b. The Metropolitan Industrial Lands Inventory Report, July 1993 (p. 46) defines buildable
industrial land as: "vacant land that is free from all of the following prohibitions to
development: floodway, severe soil constraints, severe slopes, approved wetland
mitigation site or officially protected wetlands and public ownership {except for the
Riverfront Research Park which is considered buildable)," Staff did not have access to
digital mapping of these categories ofland from the time the inventory was conducted,
so none of the areas with prohibitions to development listed above were subtracted from
the protected areas shapefile.
c. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Land and Housing Study,
Supply and Demand Technical Analysis, February 1999 (p. 32) defines areas
considered unbuildable: "As part of the supply analysis, land considered unhuiIdable
for the purposes ofthe buildable lands inventory acreage calculations was identified and
subtracted from all the supply components. These lands considered unbuildable for the
purposes of this study included the following:
· Floodway;
It ., b
· In Eugene=protected wetlandsj wetland mitigation sites, and other significant
wetlands; ,
· In Springfield=wetlands larger than 0.25 acre;
· Land within easement of 230 KV powerlines;
· Land within 75 feet of Class A stream or pond;
· Land within 50 feet of Class B stream or pond; and
· Small irregularly shaped lots were also subtracted from the total buildable land
supply during the adjustment to the land supply."
3. The remaining land shown on the protected areas shapefile, after the areas considered
unbuildable as described in step 2 were removed, were separated into residential. commercial
and industrial land use categories based upon current zoning. ,
4. Parcels zoned Agricultural on the protected areas shapefile were cross-checked against their
Metro Plan designation. Those acres that were zoned Agricultural and designated residential
were treated as if they were zoned Residential (71 acres). There were less than 0.2 acres
designated for commercial. and no acres designated for industrial use. The remainder of the
acres zoned Agricultural were designated for parks and open space use (31 acres).
5. Parcels zoned PL Public Land on the protected areas shapefile were cross-checked against
rezoning applications processed since 1992, to determine how many of these acres were
residentially zoned prior to being rezoned to Public Land. Tbis analysis showed that, while
some of these acr~s had been zoned residential, they were within the Delta Ponds area and
within Alton Baker Park, and therefore were treated as non-buildable for the purposes of this
analysis.
6. Parcels zoned as special districts were evaluated to determine what land uses are allowed
within the applied special district zoning in the areas on the protected areas shapefile.Two
special districts were affected: S-CN Chase Node and S-RP Riverfront Park.
a. In the Chase Node area, there were a total of 8.4 acres on the protected areas shapefile.
Of these acres. 7.9 acres were designated for Parks and Open Space, and 0.5 acre for
High Density Residential. For the buildable lands inventory impact acreage analysis,
the HDR area was treated as if it were zoned for HDR.
b. The Riverfront Park special area zone does not designate subareas with specific land
uses as the Chase Node special area zone does
c. . AlthOligh the area is designated "University Research" on the Metro Plan diagram, the
Industrial 'Lands Study included the Riverfront Research Park site in its inventory of
industrial sites. Therefore, the impact to buildable acres in this area was calculated.
The 49 acres in the S.RP Riverfront Park zone that appear on the protected areas
sbapefile include 27.7 acres within the WillameUe River itself. Removing those acres
leaves 13.9 acres within tbe protected areas sbapefiIe that are zoned S-RP. Of these
acres, approximately 4.1 acres are taken up by the existing 35 foot setback from the top
. of bank of the Willamette River. Another 0.3 acres are within the 15 foot setback from
the Mill Race. This leaves 9.5 acres zoned S-RP that could be developed with an
industrial use. These 9.5 acres were treated as a subtraction from the special light
industrial category, since the uses in the S-RP area most closely matcb the uses allowed
in special light industrial (now called campus industrial).
7. The acreage of the areas remaining in the protected areas shapefile, in each land use category,
were subtracted from the calculated supplies of commercial, industrial and residential land.
A -7
Buildable Lands Inventory Acreage Impact Analysis
GIS Analysis Methodology
I. Created a shapefile (propstat,A.shp) of the protected area ("protected area file") by buffering
features proposed for protection using the proposed setback distances. Buffers were measured from
stream centerline for the sm.allest waterways, from wetland boundaries~ and from edge of the water
feature on streams and rivers where the edge of water could be identified from 2004 color
orthophotography.
2. Intersected the protected area file with the Metro Parcel file, which excluded all non-tax lotted areas.
New shapefile called ''parcel-protect_intrsct.shp.''
3. Intersected "parcel-protect_intrsct.shp" with the Eugene zoning layer to create a new shapefile
called "prot""parcel-zone _ intrsct.shp."
4. Edited "prot-parcel-zone_intrsct.shp" to add field "zone type."
5. Created a new shapefile "res.yrot_areas.shp" by selecting the residentially zoned parcels fTOm
''protparcel-zone _ intrsct.shp."
6. Created a new shape file "unbuild Jes-prot _ intrsctshp" by intersecting the shapefile
"res....ProCareas.shp" with the shapefile supplied by LCOG from the 1999 Residential Lands Study
analysis ("unbuildab Ie_res. shp ").
7. Created a new shapefile "prot-parcel-zone_mfnus_unbuildJe.shp" by erasing the footprint of
residential areas from the residential portions of "prot""parcel-zone _intrsct.shp'; using "unbuild Jes~
prot_Jntrsct.shp." This shapefile was used to generate the acreage breakdown by zoning for the
buildable protected areas.
8. Created a new shapefile "prot-parcel-zone_minus_unbuild_AG.shp" by selecting only the AG
zoned parcels from "protyarcel-zone_minus_unbuHdJe.shp."
9. The shapefile "prot....Parcel-zone_minus_unbuild_AG.shp" was intersected with the Metro Plan
designation file to create a new shape file called "protyarcel-zone_min-UB_MPD.shp."
10. The shape file "prot-parcel-zone_min-UB_MPD.shp" was queried for those parcels that were
designated for low-, medium- or high density residential use. Data from this shapefile was used to
determine how many of the acres zoned AG (shown in "prot-parcel~zolle_minus_unbuildJe.shp")
were designated for residential use.
11. reated a new shapefile "plrezone join.shp" by intersecting the protected areas shape file (props tat
A.shp) with a selection of the Metro parcel file that contained only tax lots rezoned to PL since 1992.
12. Created a new shapefile "pi-rezone yarcel-join.shp" by taking a list of tax lots rezoned to PL since
1992, and joining them to the Metro parcel file. This shape file was used to cross check the r~sults in
step 11.
A-g
a. The Eugene~SPrWgfield Metrgpolitan Area Residential Land lU}g Housing- Study.
Sqpply and Demand Technical Analysis. February 1999 (p. 51) shows the supply of
buildable residential land within the UGB to include: 7,935 acres of low density
residential land, 1,219 acres of medium density residential land, and 281 acres of high
density residential land.
b. The ~etropolitan Industrial Lands IDventory RepQrt. July 1993 (p. 47) shows the supply
of buildable industrial land within the UGB to include: 452 acres of heavy industrial
. land, 500 acres of special heavy industrial land, 1,429 acres of light medium industrial
land, and 989 acres of special light industrial land. .
c. The Eugene Commercial Lands Study. October 1992, (p. I1-15) shows the supply of
buildable commercial land within the Eugene UGB to include: 702 acres of commercial
land (supply was not calculated for each category of commercial use).
8. The net number of acres of buildable land in each. land use category were compared to the
calculated demand for buildable land in each of the land use categories.
a. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Residential Land and Housing Study.
Supply and Demand Technical An~ysis. February 1999 (p. 51) shows the 20 year
demand for buildable residential land within the UGB to be: between 3.298 and 4,225
acres of low density residential land; between 523 and 64lacres of medium density
residential land, and between 120 and 147 acres of high density residential land.
b. The Metropolitan Indu~lLands Inventory Report. July 1993 (p. 73) shows the 20
year demand for buildable industrial land within the UGB to be between 650 and 1,172
acres of industrial land in all categories (demand was not calculated for each category of
industrial use).
c. The Eugene Commercial Lands Study, October 1992, (p. II-IS) shows the 20 year
demand for buildable commercial land within the Eugene UGB to be 532 acres of
c.ommercialland (demand was not calculated for each category of commercial use).
A -,
"...-"'.......
Commercial Lands
25-Aug-:<)5
~
.
Neighborhood Community Major General lTotal
Commercial Commercial Commercial Office I(all categories)
Buildable Land Supply
Eugene Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 702.00
UGS
Buildable La.nd Impacts
Net Impact -1.16 40.71 0 -1.53 -43.4(J
of GoalS
regulations
(acres)
.
Percentage .0.17% -5.80% 0.00% .0 .22~ -6.18%
Impact .
Inventory Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable !Not applicable 658.60
Remaining
(acres)
Buildable Land Demand
Projected demand over 20 years Is 532 acres
Net Buildable Land Supply In Excess of Demand After Goal 5 Removal
Net excess above demand is 126 acres.
Buildable Land Impacts
Net Impact 0 -40.9 0 {} -40.90
of Goal 5
regulations
(acres)
Percentage 0.00% -5.83% O.OO~ O.OO~ -5.83%
Impact
Inventory Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable -40.90
Remaining
(acres)
Buildable Land Demand
Projected demand. over 20 years is 532 acres
Net Supply In Excess of Demand After Goal 5 and PAPA Removals
Net axcS$s above demand is 85 acres.
A - 10
"r'.......
. .
Industrial Lands
2&.Aug-05
J
~
Heavy Special Light Special Mixed! Non- Total
Industrial Heavy Medium Light University Industrial
Indus- Industria (all cate-
trial gories)
Buildable Land SUP Illy
Eugene 254.1 S 500.41 1,230.18 134.52 43.12 132.4~ 2~895 As
UGB
Springfield 198.34 0 198.11 255.17 4.22 52.25 708.79
UGB
Metro 452.52 500.41 1,429.55 989.69 47.34 184.77 3~604.28
UGB Total
Buildable Land Impacts
Net Impact -22.89 0 -12.34 -95 0 C -44.73
of Goal 5
regulations
(acres)
Percentage -5.06~ 0.00% -0.86% -0.96% 0.00% 0.00% -1.24%
Impact
Inventory 429.63 500.41 1,417.21 980.1 S 47.34 184.77 3,55955
Remaining
(acres)
Buildable Land Demand
I Low Demand I 650.00
High Demandl 1,172.00
INet Buildable Land Supply In Excess of Demand Mter GoalS Removal
I Low Demandl 2909.55
I High Demandl 2,387.55
Buildable Land Imr: acts from Previous Plan Amendments
Net Impact -8.9 0 -371.6 -261.8 0 0 -642.30
of Goal 5 .
regulations
(acres)
Percentage -1.97% 0.00% -25.99% -26.45% 0.00% 0.00% -17.82%
Impact
Inventory 420.73 500.41 1,045.61 718.39 47.34 184.77 2,917.25
Remaining
(acres)
Net Supply In Excess of Demand After Removals frGm Previous Plan Amendments and Goal
I Under Low Demand Assumptionsl 2,267.25
I Under Hiah Demand Assumptlonsl 1,745.25
}
~-", Adjusted Acreage Summary by Zone
AG
C-1
C-2
GO
1-1
'-2
'-3
NR
PL
R-1
R-2
R-3
R-4
S
blank
Grand Total .
~
Allocated Allocated
from AG from S T atals
105.97 105.97
1.16
40.71
1.53
0.00 9.5
12.34
22.89
20.77
426.78
336.16 68.3
32.02 2.4
2.S1
3.78 0.5
57.00
0.04 .
-1063.67
6.79 =HDR subtotal
A -tf
24-Apr..oS
./
..... Ul
8 ~ ..>./'..)",.
""001",.(.)""....
8~,8~8~8
1~1;lml
f aiii' sa. ~ :i' 5'
-( .... II .... ~ ~. C/)
>< ><[:f9';'
~ ~ S''''
2" crIES's'
lil: 5.8~g:
.....!:. wI. il ~ 1$
Ul(l)Ol(i"-ii)
2'1>>0'12-3
~ () '$a. ;;: la
fn3fn 6.w '
CJtlll~Q)g-;;o1\)
fir (il Iii (i -, ~. m
~~~~I
5' S'S'
.......w-
....01 "'-J Olr,:
0ll{t0> WI
mif~i
.sl\)fnl\)
. ~.p ~
?' ?'
o
(,.)
~
In
!>-
.....
I\)
@
In
-.
I
'I
~
f?
f
I:
i
G)g:(fJ1'?J;P;P
iJ ~wl\.)....
i
2:t;jt;G)))~;!!:~(J)
;;0 0 l\) .... wZ~
mo
....
~
(J)
So~ooN~8t~~~~...~...8
en, 0 0 :.... (td:;) ~ ;.., :..... <>> (.> l:n :..... :....(0
""",.OQ3-N"'C>>-..!CO",.w....o)"'-J
~ ts
~
::t: & 8 ::t:
~ ~ 3 ~
3 3 3
1lI 2!. ~, ll)
:::l ::l
0 2!.
~ c sa.
m I ~ ....
tT f
s
(il m:
N II)
0 ~
a
0' AI
." (il
r- t
U>
:2'
S' @ ::l
~ ..... fi
co 0..
~ ~ (il
~ ~,
0..
II>
0 ::J
e.
1>>
-.) ::::i
;:0 n ~
~ ~ )>
1>>
~ al
!1!
;;
~
I\)
iil
~,
s:
5'
~ W
-.!
hT ",.
~
"
0
:::l
0. II
(II -
II) ~
a
~ a
0
~ ::;s ~
to
C/) II)
S' ~ ....
() .... -.j
1:1 ....
~ I\)
II) *
$
."
if
::l
S'
::J
,~ II>
w~
",..".
~~
A_1L
g
el.
w
ww
NO)
2~
A -/3.
City of Eugene Plan Amendments that redesignated land and affected buildable land inventories.
\
}
OTHER wewp'" WEWPAM. NET
LOR lost -0.6 0.0 -22.8 -23.4
LOR gain$d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net Change to LOR ..().6 0.0 -22.8 -23.4
MDR lost -8.2 0.0 -17.6 -25.8
MDR gained 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net change to MDR ~8.2 0.0 -17.6 -25.8
HDR lost -32.0 0.0 -15.5 -47.5
HDR gained 11.8 0.0 0.0 11.8
Net change to HDR -20.2 0.0 -15.5 -35.7
SLllost 0.0 -200.1 -61.7 -261.6
SLI gained 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net change to SlI 0.0 -200.1 -61. 7 -261.8
lMllost 0.0 -317.7 -53.9 -371.6
LMI gained 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net change to LMI 0.0 -317.7 -53.9 -311.6
~
HI lost -8.8 -0.1 0.0 ..a. 9
Hfgained 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Net change to HI -8.8 -0.1 0.0 -8.9
Clost ~11.8 -27.7 -10.1 -49,6
C gained 8.8 0.0 0.0 8.8
Net change to C -3.1 -27.7 -10.1 -40.9
The above table does not include reductions in the buildable land supply due to legislative
rezoning (e.g., /We and /wP in the WEWP area).
*The West Eugene Wetlands Plan was adopted in 1992, seven years prior to the adoption of
the' residential lands study. Therefore the residential acreage impacts from the WEWP do not
need to be accounted for here.
A ~J V
t
Land Use DesiQnatrons Chances
Project From I To T otaJ Acres'
Crescent Noda' Development Area
MA 02-9 IND Overlay Added to Properties 0
University of Oregon East Campus Plan Amendment
MA 03-1 and RA03..s
LDR Gand E 0.64
MOR Gand E 8.2
HOR G and E 7.6
Total 16..44
Chase Gardens Node
MAOi-Sand RA 01-5
Camm. HDR/NO 11,84
HOR CommlND 9,24
HOR POSINO 4.09
Total 25.17
Federal Courthouse Oistrict
MA03 2 IH-INDUST Comm 8.76
I
OT Area NO Desianation
MA 03-3 I/NO Overlay Added to Properties 0
I
Royal Avenue Specific Plan
MA02-2 and RA 02-3
/NO Overlay Added to Properties 0
Crescent Villaae pun
MA 03-1 and RA 03-2
HORlNO CINO 5.61
HORlND e/MU/NO 5.49
Total 11.1
Laurell Hill Refinement Plan
RA 04-1 IApplication Denied 0
Goal Exceptions - West EUQene Parkway
l~ I
, _ ~;~i~;'
TransPlan Amendment - West Euaene Parkway
--=)1tN/A
W. Eugene Wetland Plan Amendment ~ West Eu~ ene Parkway
~.,.~' Areas re-designated were aU
.>..: ",S ipreviouSNProtected wetlands 0
......
A -IS
-
Land Use Desianatlons Chanaes
Project I From To T otaf Acres
Summer Oaks - Crescent Center.. Triton
RA 03--1 lText Amendment 0
I
Whiteaker Plan
RA 99-1 IApplication Denfed 0
I
Bethel-Danebo
RA 99..2 IApplication Withdrawn 0
I
Peace Health
~APPlication did not oroceed. 0
Existing Library Site
RA 99..7 IPas Commercial 1047
I
Corey, Tom $,
M 00-1 IAoolication Withdrawn 0
1
Whiteaker Fire Sfation#2
RA 01..2 IG and E Mixed Use 0.19
I
Wiflakenzfe Refinement Plan Amendment
RA01..1 IApplication Withdrawn 0
T
Periodic Review .. MPD
Under appeal
,.i:' "\
)
,r-..)
Total Acres
lOR G andE 0.64
MOR Sand E 8.2
HOR G and E 7.6
Heavv Ind. Comm 8.76
HORlND "". CiND 14.85
HORiNO e/MU/NO 5.49
POS Commercial 1.47
G and E Mixed Use 0.19
Comm. HORlNO 11.84
HOR POS 4.09
"" T atal 63.13
To
HOR lost -32.03
HOR gained 11.84
Net chanoe to HOR -20.19
lOR lost -0.64
LOR aalned 0
Net change to lOR -0.64
, \
~
MOR lost -8:2
MOR aained 0
Net chanoe to MOR -8.2
HI fast -8.76
HI aained 0
Net change to HI -8.76
Clost -11.84
C (lamed 8.76
Net chanaeto C -3.08
it Ppcndl'X 7S
PARKS, RECREATION & OPEN SPACE
PROJECT lIST
NOTE: This list represents a work In progress and should be considered
a draft document at this time. The capital and non-copltaf projects
contained herein ore those which were generated through pubUc
Involvement over the past fwo years. It Is not antlclpated that projects
will be either added or deleted prior to the Ctty Councll approval
process of this Ust. However, addltional work to refine costs and
evaluate growth allocation percentages Is oogoing and Is stJ1l to 00
determined. The result of that work, will be added herein when
avaifobte.
The City of Eugene's Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS)
Project ust and Priorities document identifies, prioritizes, and estlmates
costs of proposed actions for parks, open space and recreation
focifitles, programs, and seNlces.
The PROS Project Ust and Priorities document is organized Into the
following sections:
· Priorfties: Includes tables listing proposed capital and 00l)-
capital project prioriflas for parks, open space, and recreation
faclUties, programs, and services. Capitol projects are
organized by geographic planning area. Non-copital projects
ore organized by program area.
· Maps: Includes maps of existing and proposed parks and
open space resources, organized by geographic pfanning
area. A map of park and school service areas and areas
identified as underserved is also Included.
· Costs: Includes estimates for cost of capital and non-capitol
projects.
G City of Eugene PROS Project List
1
Priorities
The projects Identified in the following tables ore the specific means
by which the strategies Identified in the PROS Comprehensive Plan
can be implemented. The projects were ranked by members of the
Mayor's Advisory Committee and staff os 0 way to identify projects
that should be Implemented in the next 5 years, 10 years, 15 years, 20
years, and more than 20 years. Table 1 lists capitol project priorities.
Table 2 lists norrcopital project priorities.
Priority 10: This includes high priortly projects that should be
completed in the next 5 years to protect existing assets, to acquire
property, to meet the needs of underseNed neighborhoods and
poputotions; and to implement high-priority programs and seNices.
Priority Ib: This Includes high priority projects that should be completed
in the next 10 years in order to enhance existing assets and to
implement hlgh.prlority programs and services.
Priority 2: This Includes high prlority projects that shoutd be completed
In the next 15 years to keep up with growth and to meet Identified
community needs for parks, open space, recreation programs, and
services,
Priority 3: This includes medium priority projects that should be
completed In the next 20 years to realize the community's long range
VISion for parks, open space, recreation programs, and serVices.
Priority 4: This inc:lucres projects that should be initiated, but not
necessarily C<>mpl9fed, wtthln the next 20 years.
2
City of Eugene PROS Project List
Proposed Projects for Porks, Open Space, and facilities (copftat
improvements)
Table lUsts proposed projects for parks, open space, and recrootlon
facilities. The projects relate to strategies for devetopfng new parks,
open space, and recreation facillffes, as well as for Improving existfng
faclrmes and acc€)S$. Reference numbers in paren1nesis (such as 83) In
Table 1 for new nefghbomood parks are located on Maps 1 through 7.
These reference numbers indicate where new neighborhood parks will
be located to meet the needs of previously under-served areas.
Table t Is organized by geographic planning areas:
Bethel/Danabo;
City Central;
River Rood/Santa Clara;
South Eugene;
Willakenzie;
Willow Creek; and
General/Citywide.
Proposed Projects for Programs, Services, and Projects. (non-capifaJ
Improvements)
Table 2 fists proposed actions for programs, services. and projects.
These actions relate to new programs and non-capital projects that
cannot be completed using existing stoff and resources. Existing
programs and projects are not included.
Table 2 is organized in the following program areas:
Recreation Programs;
Parks;
Community Faclllfles;
Access and Connectivity;
Renovation/Restoration:
Resource Development; and
Management.
o City of Eugene PROS Project List
3
Maps
Existing and Proposed Resources Mops
Map liltustrates existing and proposed pOti<, recreation, and open
space resources for the entire Eugene planning area.' Reference
numbers for new neighborhood park sites are labeled on each map
and correspond to specific projects listed In Table 1. Resources for
each planning area are highlighted In Maps 2 through 7:
Bethel/Danebo;
Ctly Central:
River Road/Santa Clara:
South Eugene:
Wlllakenzie; and
Willow Creek.
Park Service Area Map
This mop Illustrates the City of Eugene's pork and schoof service areas.
Resldenflal areas not within 0 112-mi1e sofe walking distance of a
playground are oIso fdenfffied and Jabeled. These labels correspond
to reference numbers identified on the resource mops and to specific
actions listed in Table 1.
4
c
CIty of Eugene PROS Project List
Costs
Capital Costs
Table 3 provides cost estimates for the PROS facility Improvements
Identified in Table 1. These Include: capita! costs for all projects,
maintenance and operations costs for Priority One improvements, and
growth allocation percentages for purposes of calculating system
development charges (sdc's).
Developing new capital projects will have a significant impact on the
City's parks and open space maintenance budget and wilt also
require budgeting for capital preseNation and replacement costs In
'the longer term. It is Important that the City allocate sufficient
maintenance furidlng to protect maintain and eventually replace
new capital investments. In addition to the maintenance costs of new
projects, this plan recommends that a minimum per unit maintenance
budget be developed based on a detailed maintenance
management plan for each park type. This analysis will ftkely result in a
need for additional maintenance funding for existing porks for two
reasons. First for natural oreas, the rates could include fundfng to
improve habitat. Second, for areas that hove structures, the rates
could include the capitol replacement cost of the structures.
Growth allocation percentages allow the City to determine how
much of the Indlviduot prOject costs can be attributed to population
growth. These figures are used to calculate system development
charges.
Non-Capitol Costs
Table 4 provides cost estimates for non-capitol priority one programs
and projects identified in Table 2.
Costs estimates include the following categories: stafftng, matertals,
and other. A staffing FTE (full time equivafent) is indicated where
opproprlate. Of the costs listed, stafffng estimates are annual costs'
based on 0 yearly salary, plus benefits. Materials and other costs are
typically one time costs. All costs are in 2004 dollars and do not factor
In anticipated revenues.
CUy of Eugene PROS Project Lisf
5
Table 1: Proposed Projects for Parks, Open Space and
Recreation Facilities b Plann! Area
Bethel Oanebo
~
a:
o
a:
A.
NEW PARKS & OPEN SPACE
A<<jUfre a neighborhood pad( site to $&fVe 1his area (53)
Acquire a neighborhood pad( site to $&fVe 1his area (B4)
Acqulroa neighborhood pad( site to serve this area (e5)
Acqulre 100+ acres surrotlI'lding Golden Gardens ponds for community park
AcqUIre a nelg/lboftlood park site to north, adjacent to Golden Gardens (131)
AcquIre natural area wflhln Royal Mixed Use area
Develop.Golden Gan:lens and acquired property as community park with significant
natural area components and trails
Develop neighborhood park sire (B3)
Develop neighborhood park sire (B4)
Develop neighborhood pari< site (e5)
Develop I1elghborhood pari< site (81)
Acquire portlQn otUnion Pacific aleS for neighborhood and community park, Including
connections. recreatiQn and ce
Acquire land for urban plaza to be devefoped in partnership with transit
Acquire linear park along Roosevelt drainage channel
Acquire land f9f nalUI'alareas tQ comptete RiYef$1o Ridges farmlandconncctions
NEW RECREATION FACiLITIES
Develop 1ralts wiUlin W\$ctEugene Wetland ~
Develop soccer fields at Belhef Community Park
Develop a running trait to serve the Bethel area
Prov~ major community center on west site of Selllineto serv~ Bethel
Pro~trailhead$and interpretive facillties within existing WEW slWs
Pro~ synthetic surface fleIdll> serve BethellDanebo In parlnership with school district
Develop an off leash dog arEla in Selhel1Danebo
Develop fl!lllij.use path to Fern Ridge
Develop pedestrian traits along Greenhill Tributary
Develop pedestrian trails within Golden Gan:lens
Develop 4 tennis.courts at ~ Community Part
IMPROViNG EXISTING FACILITIES
Improve Echo Hollow Pool
Upgrade State Street Park .
Implemeotlawr phases of Petersen Bam Park, lncIudlng parking revisions
Expand Petersen Barn Community Center
Improve Tennis Courts a.t WHS in partnership with Belhel School District 52
Implement later phases of Irwin Part
Implement development of law ptlases.ofCandlelighl Part
AGCESSIMPROVEMENTS
Develop 8CCessimprovements between Bethel area park$,schoofS and nelghbOltloods
to WEW sYStem and blk~ svstem
Develop access Improvements to meet Mighborhood park needs (See 62 Oil Map 3)
Develop acCElSS ImprovElments to serv~ this Mighbol'hood (See 86 on Map 3)
Improve Royal Aven~to enhance park/school COMecllvily
ACqUire land to provlde connectivity north and east from Bethel to Santa Clara area
I)
18
1a
1a
1b
1b
1b
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
1a
1a
1a
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1b
1a
1a
1b
2
3
3
1a
2
2
2
3
1
~..
Acqutre I~ to provide significantrlvertront open space wIlhln courthouse/cannery
net d '
Acquire and/or trade for new or expanded site for West University Parlt (C1)
Acquire land in front of SMJ House
Implement plan for Jefferson Area Greenway and linear park
ACQUite land at 4J Admin site 10 expand River House and Rose Garden for special
event site
Acquire land to provide urban open space withln Courthouse neighborhood
Implement SMJ House plan, including parking and access across railroad tracks
Acquire land to expand park blocks
Develop miftmce linear pari<
1a
1a
1a
1b
2
2
2
3
4
NEW RECREAT!ON FAC!lITIES
Provide covered centrally located ~te paff( with blcycte facilities 1a
Provide Interpretive facilities and 1ralfsat Skinner Butte Park,enhance accessibility 1a
ProYlde children's play components In downtown core 1a
Develop multi-cultural communlty center/aquatic center in WhIteaker/Skinner Butte 1b
area
Develop environmental education site behind RiVer House 2
Develop an off leash dog area in City Central 3
Develop visual arts center 4
IMPROVING EXISTING FACiLITIES
Upgrade Monroe Patk 1a
Upgrade Campbell Center with fitness center 1a
Upgrade Chamel Mulligan Park 1a
Implement Skinner Butte Part< Master Plan 1afb
Complete second phase of River House Master Plan 1b
Upgrade Sladden Park 2
Upgrade Scobert Gardens 3
Implement Rose Garden master plan 3
ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
1a
1b
2
.~
,." .'
River Road/Santa Clara
~
~
tl.
NEW PARKS & OPEN SPACE
Acquire a nefghbomood park site (R1) 1a
Acquire community part< site to serve River Road/Santa Clam 1a
Acquire neighborhood park site (R2) 1a
Acquire a nelghbQrhood park site (R3 and .R4). 1a
Develop Walnut Grove Park as a neighborhood park 1a
DeVelop filbert Meadows Park as a nefgf1borflood park 1a
Acqutr& land on priority st<>rmwater conidors that link with developed parks, include 1a
trails
Acquire additional river frontagtil, including property to the north . 1a
Develop Rosetta Place Pari< as neighbomood park 1a
Develop Santa Clara {)()mmunity Park, including lighted ballflelds 1b
Develop Terra Linda Pari< as nelgtlborllood parl< 1b
Develop lone. ~k park site as neighborhood park with alhletic fields 1b
Develop Wendover Part< site as neighborhood pari< 1b
Implement Rasor Pari< Master Plan 2
Develop neighbofhood pari< site (R1) 3
Develop neighborhood park s<<e (R2) 3
Oevelopnelghborhood park site (RS and R4) 3
Aoquire land for an urban plaza in Santa Clara 3
Acquirefand for parl<.wllti agIlclJltuml charl!lCmr,poss!ble living history farm 4
NEW RECREATION FACIU l"fES
Develop a mat<>t ~aquatlccenter to serw Santa Clam
Develop a seoond WlIlamette.Rtver boat launch
Develop an off leash dog area in Rivet RoadISantaClara
Oevelop a disc faclllty to serve Santa Clara and RIver Road
Enhance nalural area at13ramblewood Park
Implement later phases of Arrowhead Park
Implement later phases of Awbrey Park
ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Improve access north!south of BeltIine . 1b
Improve access to existing natural resource areas 2
Develop pedestrian and bike access improvements between River Road/Santa Clara 2
and BetheIOanebo and Fem Ridae Reservoir
Improv08OO$SS to.exlsting parks (See R5 on Map 3) 2
Improve access to existing parks (See R6 on Map 3) 2
Q
.3
Acquire AnmonPalk iohoIdings along Hilyard fur oommunlty.park use
Acquire neighl>orflood park to $&Jye this area {$6)
Complete greenwayllinear pari< plan for Amazon Creek from ~dwaters to
Fal rounds in artnershl WiU1 ACOE
Develop nelghborflood palk site ($6)
Oe'Allop Prefontaine Memorlal Park as a metropolitan pm
1a'
1a
2
2
3
NEW RECREATiON FACILITIES
Develop sPflly palb at Washington and or Monroe Parks 1a
Devetop soccerfleld at N. Westmoreland 1a
Devefop trails, trallheads, and interpretive facltities throughout RidgeHne Park 2
Develop mountain biking trails and freetidlng desi9nated areas 2
Acquire Civic StadiUm for renovallon and expan<led COlMlUl1ity use 2
Provide full service oommunilycenter by upgrading Amazon. Community Center 3
IMPROVING EXISTING FACiLITIES
Provide accessible trails within HendricJ($ Park "Rlrest 1a
lmplelMnt Hendricks Park Forest Management Plan 1a
lJpgtade Tugman Park 1a
Develop parking and access to laurelwoo<l "6acl< 9" and Ribbon Trail south arid 1a
Enhance Crest Heights prairie habitat 1a
Enclose a portion of Amazon Pool for year round use 1b
Upgrade Lafferty Palk 2
Enhance Spencer Butte Trail system 2
Imptement Frank Kinney Park plan 2
Implement Amazon Park master plan 2
Implement Westmoreland Pall( master plan 2
Upgrade Falrmount Park 2
Upgrade Washburne Part< 2
Implement Friendly Park plan 2
Upgrade KlncafO Park 2
Upgrade University Park 2
ImplelMntlater phases of MIlton Pat!( 3
Implement Morse Ranch Park master plan 3
Replace lrrigation at 4lurelwood 3
Restore Bloomberg 3
Provide play area at $I:I;:ldow Wood Park 3
ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Improve access to Fnendly & Lafferty Parks {See 82 on Map 3) is
Improve access to Kincaid and Milt<>l1 Parks (See S4 on .Map 3) 1a
Replace pe~strian bridges at Amazon Park. add new brt<lges Where needed 1b
Improve access to Frank Kinney, Edgewood and $6 (See 87 on map 3) 2
Improve access to Fairmount and Laurel Hal Park (Se$ $1 on Map 3) 2
Improve aCCeSs to Amazon Park (See sa on Map 3) 2
Improve aCCess to Tugman Park (See S5 on Map 3) 2
4
f;
~-o:.
WiJlakenzie
~
iii
o
iia
Q.
NEW PARKS & OPEN SPACE
AeqUlre land for neighborhood park (W11) 1a
Acquire land fpr natural areas wllhin Willatne1WMcf<~mfe River confluence 2
Acquire land fur nal.uralareas and access to Gillespie Butte 1a
Develop Wlllakenzle school site 8$ n(\lgbborhood park, wllh play area and ballfields 1a
Develop ~k:$kle Park as neighborhood park 1a
Acquire a neighborhood park (W4) 1b
AcqUlreland fur naf.uraf areas along McKenzIe River (Rivers to Ridges) . 3
Develop Chase Commons Pad( as nelghboft\(x)dpark 1b
Develop and implement restoration plan for Green tslaod with partner agencies 4
Develop neighborhood park site (Wi1) 3
NEW RECREATION FACILITIES
Develop StrIker Fields as community park within sports comptex model, wilIl significant 1a
athIetlc fields. lighting
Develop regional play area In Alton Baker Park 1a
ProvIde additional dog off-ieasn f~es north of beltline (WK) 2
Oewlop.spraypark at Ascot 3
IMPROVING EXISTING FACILITIES
Upgrade Bond Lane Pad( 1a
Upgrade Brewer Park 1a
Develop play area at Ascot 1a
Renovate SIleldon Community Center and pool 1b
Implement later phases of Oal(mont Park 3
Implement tater phases of Gilham Pm 3
Enhance and develOj:lSorreI Ponds site 3
ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
'ProVlde Underpass via Delta. Ponds to riverfront blke system 1a
Enhance access to Striker FIelds (See W3 on Map 3) 2
Enhance access to Brewer & Bondlane Parks (See W5 on Map 3) 2
Improve COflnectMty to Sheldon (See W6 on Map 3) 2
Eflhance BccesS to Crescent Park (See W1 on Map 3) 2
Improve access and parking at Cal Young Sports Park (See W2 on Map 3) 2
Pr<>vide access and improvements at Delta Ponds 2
Eflhance access to Willat<<mzle school. and Ascot Pam (See W9 and W10 on Map 3) 2
Enhance access to Oakmoot Palt (See W8 on Map 3) 3
~
..
5
NEW PARKS & OPEN SPACE
Willow Creek
~
~
Q..
Acquire land for combined neighborhood park and Rldgeline "Gateway" (WCt)
Acquire land for ~on Creek Greenway (We2)
Acquire land for combined neighborhood park and Rklgeline "Gateway" (WC3)
Acquire land for neighbottlood park (WC5)
Develop Hawkins Heights Pane 8$ lit neighborhood park (WC4)
Develop nelghboltlood park (WC5)
Develop Vldera Pane to serve (WCe)
Develop recreational ameoltles along Amazon Greenway to serve nelghbomoQd park
~s C2
OevelopRidgellne "Gateway" park (WC1) as bolh trailhead and outdoor recreation .
arEla with lcolc, I area. bask~ me.
Develop Ridgeline "Gateway" pane (WC3) as bolh trailhead and outdoor recreation
area with icnlc. a area, basketball, ~.
.
Develop major lruloodoutdoor aquatic facllityand community <:enter
Develop trails, trallheads. and lnterprellve facllitlesln WEW
Develop off..leash dog area to serve Willow Creek
1a
1a
la
la
la
la
1a
lb
3
IMPROVING EXISTING FACIliTIES
Upgnlde Acorn Park
Upgrade Be~ley Pane
Implement Wild Iris Ridge Habitat Enhancement Plan
Implell1flnt Skyvklw Park
Restore WIllow Creek between 11th & 18th
ls
2
2
2
2
Enhance access to Churchill $ports Park {See WC20n Map 3)
Enhance access to Amazon Creek Greenway and Fem Ridge Bikepath in !he Willow
Creek Area
6
.
Ac:qulte natural areas t\) connect Rklge1ine systerneast toPlsgah and Willame1te
River s rem
Acquire natural areas to complet(l Moon Mountain to Spencer Butte segment
Acquire addlllonal ridgeline to complete Fern J'ijdge to West Eugene Wetlands
Acqufre additional ridge6ne to Compfete WiDow Creek to Bailey Hill Road
Acqufre additional. ridgeilne to complete Bailey Hill Road to Blanton Hei9hts
Acquire llddilionalAmazon Headwaters property
ExpaodRidgeilne Trail naturat~rea park to /odude Spencer Creek~
1alb
1a1b
1a1b
1a1b
1a1b
1b
2
NEW RECREA"r ION FACILITIES
O$velop Environmental Education Center 1a
Oevelopprllnary R1dgelioe trails 1a
Develop trail faeilitiesthroughout the Ridgellne system 2
Develop a Vellodrome 4
IMPROViNG EX!SHIlG FACILITIES
Renovate park restrooms
. 0lMl1op chlklreo'$ play area renovatlon program
Repface 'nginfnlstructure atAlton Baker Park
Renovate Alton Baker Canoe Canal for kayakfng. recrealion, and natural resource
benefits
Replace Maintenance Buildfngs at laurelwood
Implement Rldgeline Park Master Plan
DeCommlsslon wading.poo!$
Improve CUthbert Amphitheater
Comptete Alton Baker Park, update WASP Development Plan and EABP Master Plan
Renovate park irrigation systems
Renovate park lighting systems
Renovare tennis COlJI't$, fncIudlng tesulfaclng
Implement habitat management plans
Provide for replacement of synthetic surface fields in partnership with 4J
18
1a
1a
1a
1a
2
2
2
1a1b
111
1a
1a.
1a
2
Complete comprehensive PeS Signage System
Complete ADA improvements
tI)
7
Table 2: Pr
Provkie 1 family program In eachpfanning district annoally
Expand communfty center hours of operation to Mon...sat; mtnImum 12 open hrs each
da
Provide 1 signlllcant special event (fur all ages) in each plannlng area per year
Add community garden coordlnator
Increase concerts In the pa~
Hire. a staff coordinator for culturally diverse pro mmlng
Conduct sur\ley$ every 3 years to detem1ine changing recreation and community
inlerests
Offer 1 otlgoingintergenerallooal ptOgmmln each planning area in addition to
va(lilional ro f< mmin .
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
8
(W
--
. .
Inctease <:I ratiQll$ funding for SheldOll Community Center and Pool
Provide operations funding for an aquatlcskomtnunity center In Willow
Creek
Expand $f.afling for Echo Hollow Pool
Expand staffing at C8I'l1pbellCenter for afltness center
PA)vlde operations fundingJor year-rolllld use or Amazon Pool
Increase operations funding forPetersen Bam Communi Center
Provide operalions fundill9 fot a multl-colturalfaquatlc center in
Whlteakerl$l<inne( Butte
Provide operatiOn$ funding for a commuolty center in West BeUleI
~ase openmonsfundlng for Rivet House expanSion
Provide operations fundO for CivIc Stadium
Provide operations funding for an aquatlcslcommunity center In Santa
Clala
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Parks
t!:'\
-
9
Table 2: Proposed Projects for Programs, Services,
and Projects (continued)
.
Conduct a sidewall<!pe@s1rlan access study of each pfanJ'liJ'lg area
Conduct Ii tralllntetcept survey on 1 major trall eveI}' allier year
RenovationlRestoration
RENOVAT!ONfRESTORATION (GENERAL)
Oevetop restoration planslmana!Jement plans for flaltlral areas, lnoludlng
the rid~ne sy$m, WiIlamette River corridor, West Eugene Wellands,
and other Iar I'\illural areas.
fm ement the Whllamut Natural Area Management Plan
Implement invasive species control programs to maintain ecological
Int ofo s
Renovate ridgeline flail segments to higher standards to minimize flail
failure and Inacesslbi .
:
Hire a ImilI1<eting director lOr .lRCS
Develop trail system maps for Amazon. Rldgellne, and Riverfront trails
Establish a pllrks and recreation central community information
clearin hou~
Provide.a general recreatlon se(Vices brochure in SpariIsh
Conduct a study 10 determine how to enhance arts and entertainment In
Downtown E ne
flrovide fadfity signage In Spaoisll
.
1
1
1
1
10
~
Table 3t Capital Costs by Improvement Type
Pnonty Priority """"'r
Mafh,~h(:,. Acqulsln.. l'<lorRy l>rl>>rily 2 3 <I Growth
Com !)ow"-,,, lA 18 CQ6lS Com e.~""d AlIrJ(OIk:J,A
fQTAU .Yruus1 "$ )'Q($ 6 10 to ........11 T......l. V...'20 'B(,~to.
IoH l<:oZIl
"1........~p&kol(o~_tlllo.....(lli) $ 2,200 $ l5@MO $ 5OO,00ll
"",un ...lgI,~P'Pf<."""" trn.....1B4) $ 2,2110 $ l5@.coo $ 500,_
\cq.... . "lg~P'Pf<. "'.......rn. .re. 1951 $ :l,2\1Q $ ~.coo $ 5OO,llO$
\<Q.... """"", i<8d8 "',..... for W... Ul>NOf>lty ~.r1< lei) $ 600 $ ~.ooo $ aso.coo .'
\<QulfIl PO"'~_ltll<_ll3Q) $ 2,2(lll $ nl.OW $ _.OW
I<<tWM "Mle~P'Pf<. (Ill) $ 2,2(lll $ nl.OW $ lilHl,~
~~""",.ll4t{m) $ 2,2(lll $ SIIO,OW $ !llO,OOO
~".~p."'. (RS.ndf:l41 $ UOll $ 500.000 $ lRlO,OW
p.",,,,,, W_ Qo,,,,, Pri... "'I$bbo<t>oo<t ,.,,1< $ MOO $ 2040.000 $ 24ll.~00
Po.....,p.lll>otlM.lId.... """'... "ivh~",rk $ 14,1$0 $ S!l6,OOll $ ~OW
""""'.~l'lo..Pa"'..~_~ $ 4.300 $ 1l!O.00ll $ 12Moo
.... foooj"'r_~JlOfk.ndR..$Oh $ 4.0Il0 $ 1;26l},OOO $ 1;26l}.ooo
ktwal" mel)
.... - for__ ~ """''''''' II"'" $ 4,OIlO $ 1.260,000 $ I,:!SO.llOO
.
- _.6>t".Ioft_JlOl1<lWOSI $ 2,200 $ 500.000 $ SOO,llOCl
~ ~ I10lghls Porku. noig/dx>mood JlOfk\WC41 $ 12,900 $ ~.OW $ 3Sll.llOIl
"""""'~-"""'(WC51 $ 8,600 $ 2<<l.OW $ 24ll.llOIl
"'''''' V_PlIII<l<>_WO-t $ 8.800 $ 2040,llOO $ Z4ll.llOIl.
""""-""~""""twl1) $ 11.200 $ SIIO.Ooo $ llW.000
_"'P__I........IuI>~"'rI<._p/oy..... $ 1!I;$OO $ GOO.ooo $ -.000
llcl..-.
~ ellOlg/>bodlood park"''' _. .."._"'_.. $ 500,000 $ 500,_
001_ (Ot)
valop mlghI>o-po",,,, (113) $ 48<1,_ $ 400.000
valop ~_.."'... \Il4) $ 48<1,llO$ $ 400,000
valop ~-""",... (lIS) $ 48<1,llO$ $ 400,000
VIOlop .ll4tllll) $ 21G,llO$ $ .ve,ooo
valop ~POii<.($$) $ 400,llOCl $ 480,_ .
VIOlop '-l.l<>oIa Pod<.. plIII< $ SlG,llOIl $ S10.llOO
Pow"", l<me !)Ok"""_....~"'lI<w8lt""'__ $ 4GO.0IXl $ <161,000
Ilo""""'W__'l>e>f<.....~_plIII< $ 120,000 $ 120.OW
"""""'" ......1- ........- """"Il Am=.G...._~'" """'" $ ~ooo $ 4$0,000
""'_tWC2l
""""'~l>olk...~_par1< $ IS,831 $ 3SOAQO $ 3ilO,4/Xl
".~l*I<{W41 $ l5@.ooo $ 500.1lOO
0'Il fop~ 00mm<Il>s __ oolokborfwo~ l'Or1< $ 48<1.000 $ 4$O,1lOO
0'Il fop noI$llt>O-potk.... (ltlt $ 480,lRl(l $ 480,000
rop "'--"""''''1lUl $ 48<1,00ll $ 480-tQO()
wlop Mlohbo"-'po"'. (lthllcl f:l4! $ 48<1,_ $ 4SO,OOO
OlJ~~.-Y'''''''\WCll..__.lId $ _.coo $ Gllll.1lOO
..-;......--_'*""',p/oy_.-tboJ,tdE.
Oewlot> f\ldgelln. "Go_I'" JlOfk (WC$)... __ad..lId $ Sllll.@ $ 000,_
-''''''''.tcn__'''''"''',play.....,_lIlo1l; "e.
Oe~ "'lW111 $ 4$O,llOCl $ 4$OMO
NelGH8ORHOQO l'ARKTOTAt $ ,2\),121 $ 1*,33$,40< . $~40<1 $ ~- $ 2.n~,m I 3,12G,t00 l .
~+.....-..lJoill..(Jo,lj....poKdt Il>r $ :\\},llO$ $ 2".o()o/CIOO $ - $ 2.000.000
. ""'"
~-.-~aIo"9t1i1yoil1fo<~pItft\ $ 1~2 $ 1,000.000 $ 1.000,GOO
r-
[Aoq..... ......<llllIy P'Pf<.lt<o 10 _ santo Cle... $ 12,001> $ S.OIXl.ooo $ $,00<1.000
~"'p _ CIaIa Comnllll18yPelk, io_i<>9llul>l<>d ....,_. l loo.OW $ 2,000,000 $ . l 3.$00.0IXl
~_.ll.tnIone.lId~_"'"IlOIIy.._y!><<1k $ ',~OllAO& l ',Sllll.OOO
ilII~nel""'I__.,IMWI.I""'*
~J>O'llo<l..,U....__.lorno~.<I<l $ 2.500,_ i 2,50MOll
~pall<,inWd1ng 1mpco_..._... _100_
flOl\.......
COMt,tUNm' !>ARK TOTAL $ '1<13,392 $ 11,1OtIWO $ "000,000 I &,li68._ $ '3._.000 $ i,!SO&,ooe $ -
~"lId 10 ~. ..m..""",, tp... wltI1ln Coor1houte $ ~O $ ~!SO&
~ lollcl fo,.n.." pjoz. III be devoIopo~ In ",_hip Wil. $ <I2S.coo l ~,1lOO
t....
~ fomcl.. .xpalld ""Ulod<s $ 4:lS,llOCl $ 426,1lOO
AoqM _ro,,,,, urt.oo pfo;e.. _ em. $ 426.coo $ 426,000
UR:8A!4I'LAlA TOTAL s 1,137.50$ $ $ $ SG2,6l}O S l,21S)llIQ $ .
Table 3: Capital Costs by Improvement Type
~.... ""'" to, .......... C..ok q........y(WCZ} .
'''''''''RIOlll pion"" JolIen;oa A'N ~_y """ _r pori<
o;",lopm;&"~'in""'pOfk
..p_nt~..w.oyillnoo, p&ri< pion"" Amazon CfNk m,."
l1...dwaton klF~lIRd< In j>e._1p wlch ACOE
~m'">tA'_Pe<l<M,"""PlAA
kq.....ljn- ""'" ""'ngRo.",",~d"'~ Gl1ahnol
I.tNt;AA PARK TOTAl..
Aoqul<e_ on priority """,""",ter eonld...!hat link ~ d.....k>p&<!
~rk6. $
<l<lude lrofls
~..... .-.., rivetfromauo, ilI<I'l<lI'lll iX<>jloIty kl 0., l1Ql<h t
~uir'lal\Cllot.._ _'0 Wftl1io WIilol..lMAd<...... flkw t
00rIlkIe_
A~_for"l""".""..IId"_*' GlIfo__ $
Aoqul<enow...,.....lO _or:lll~ eyolom..... 10 Pt<g.n<<ll<l $
W8ie--_m
=~"'I<R'lIl.-""""PIo~_M_lnIoSpenoo,a<ltll $
~'-Aal~..""",p1eto""mAfd;e",w.etE<lQO... $
JA.:ouIr...-"", ridueIIho kl ",""pin. IMIIow ~k Ie> e.tIo\' i'tiII Rc t
~odd_IAoIglIllcwkl"'""",","_yHillR"d"'lllohto" $
'to/ghlo
_.._lo__lnRoyot__ .-
""-folld "" ....UIal_ eklrog _Me Rive< i'\fvo.. '"
igoo}
""--"'Ama___rty $
"'lid RidgolIoe rroRMI....'_. pall< '" '- 5_ Cf...k
~
A~ _for ....-......'" .,..."tote R""'-I. FlI49o. f.,mlolld
""-dim>
_=L~~=~kr_lolancIwRh"- t
~I'''''lOpcb-~~_nOl>"'''I!Illtll. t
~
~PO~AH~:;:;;tlro~n- t
~"'_>lf8MJ_ $
~.I _...4JAcI_...."'. ""I'OMRlwrH<<....aodF\<!..
~-""0l0e<!l01_0it0
i= "" polf<_~-...,..J>O$S1I>I& lMlla
1At. MCIUTr TOTAl. $
EWPARKS AND OPEN SPAJ:;E TOTAL $
Matnt.~c.
Coste
6,4l1<l $
$
.
$
$
$
$
42,tlW $
$<1,000 $
u~ $
1,42' $
IUlI<l $
*,7-10 $
JO,2OIl $
13S.clI<l $
a4,760 $
. $
$
4,1l6~ $
$
$
$
#$,st. $
a.- $
$
~$
$llO t
$
$
"'" t
m..$'I t
"'e""l$flloR
D.v~Opm,"hC
TOTAUJ
SQQ,OOO $
470,400
2l!,Qoo,OOO
1.000.000
~4/},1lOO
2QOOOO
2a,.I16.480 J
$00.600 J
$00.000 $
1,000,000
a12.8ll<l $
S~.OOO J
3~,O<lO $
W.OOO.OOO $
3.000,000 $
3.000.000 $
500 0<l0
800.000
600,000
ro,OOO,OOO
34.elM~ $
1~<)O(l t
l.2ll,ooo>
f~.e$l $
171._ $
1.725,000
UK-_ $
$1,,1*_ J
trloflly
1~
Y-Ufe.1to.$:
5OMOO
$Q<l.OQU t
$Q<l,OOO
8OQ,OOO
~12,5(JO
SSO,1lOO
1.626,000 .
$.ooo~ $
1,SCl;.0Q0 J
1,5(JO~ $
$
ft,wf,500 $
t_15OO,-O:OO"
MOQ,QOQ $
17I.0lIIl
1Tl,~ J
~$,7<<,900 $
l'r&.dty
18 .
V.an&1o 1<)
mAQ<l
-41~4OQ $
1.~)lOO
S.ooo.Olkl
1._,1lOO
1,1>00,000
600,001)
$
soo,ooo
18,$2S.8OO $
. J
U.'1$M80 $
Prior1ly
l!
C_.
Y.~t$ 1t
In 1$
1,00(>,000
2oKl,tlW
$
t,24/},IlOl) $
"
1,@.OOO
J
6,000.000 $
(,<lllO,oOQ $
. $
$
1,7aS.OOO
1,1U,lIOQ $
It~3,.808 $
~
I'rior1ly
3
CQ&lo.
1'....18
1020
~()ll,llOO
2S0,~ $
Soo.ooo
6.000.000
$
$
5.900.000 .
$
. $
1.20,0lIIl
12Q,QOQ $
$
. $
13,1111>,088 .
Prior1ly
4
IlO.Yond
Y~t:tQ
GrOWth
AUotatf.on
P"'~g9
$
20,OOO.00<J.
aO,OSQ,808
~eoo.ooo
2
Table 3~ Capital Costs by Improvement Type
Priority Priority P<Iotily
flIol._.. A<:qultltl.. Prlftllly Priority 2 3 4 Growth
~. 0...1.....- 11. 11\ ~ ~O$l$ a.yond A~.atlon
TOTAte Y_1to5 "(....~to 10 "(_11 V....... 15 YeiK .2G '.N:'~~
1<>15 1028
""""'''Y''''l1Ol'IW~"""w__Pltll<o .. 11.lX!(l $ 1&).@ $ m.ooo
_"__Olllotl..JC....\f!1IIy~ $ MOO $ 440,000 $ ~.ooo
Y*tRp.wsmif)g keitlo NI(w! th6EJe8'A't~* $ 2.800 $ 44,~ $ 44.200
",..,,_/lel.ht". W..tmOlOloll<l $ 2.000 $ =,- $ m.ooo
_" _~f<<Id... oo_....y pa,k _il1.~ ",,,,,,,",, .. \25(000 $ 5,llOO,llOO $ ~OOO,_
Imo.t.t ....,,<iIl---.l{jhtlno.
....- mojo'_y_""w.ot.ld. olio_to...... $ .
",-, 10,llOO.(X!O $ 1il,ilOO,OOO
~<<YoIhollo_..lioldlo &OM _mane"" ..,,"-..hI!> $ $93.000 I 893,000
Iww>-_ .
~__I~._,,",,"olfitie..Oflhof..1lllno (WKI $ 16fl,000 $ 150,<100
JI)oftlop ...ofI_<IIlg_In~_ $ 16fl,000 S 1$0.000
YOloppedOot~1>'alIo withln_._ $ lIO.ooo S 80,000
__41enn1< """,,".1 e.tllol O<>mmunlly ,,011< $ 384,000 S 3&1.000
__oII_<Io8.....il108yc.._ $ 1&).<100 $ 1$0,000
'"*'" ...011_<108 .....lnllhio<_Som. Cfor<o .. 1ll4.Wl! $ 1!i<l,000
~".. <lis<: golffecllilyto ...... Sa.... CIoflt lOnd.1'Mt 1\<>04 $ 40.000 S 40,000
IDowIop oft4oaob d"ll._w..... Wl80w o...~ .. 18lt.000 $ 150,000
Jl)owlop spray pedtOl_ .. 75,000 $ 15,000
Jl)owlop lllII8kIoe ~ to Fern Ride- S . $ .
~~"-IIf<>l>9~~TtWo<y .. 182,000 $ 1$.2,000
~*""WIl>lr>W"e..a-__ s a,1<lO $ 160,000 $ 140.000
llI<faob_ .. 101,4EO $ 1,:lSO,ooo $ 1.:s$\l,ooo
~_.""lnte'l>'Ollvo_._..lstiouWEWell" S 100,000 I 189._
=..~ tnlilhoedo. lOnd~_''''-''''''' $ 7:10,000 $ nil,llOO
...... __ ~hllt.nd fMfidI<Ig olooloRoted...... $ 101,000 $ 791,ilOO
-....lnllIo. ""_, """ ~ fe6Ilil;ulawr;w $ 60.000 $ 1lO,00il
MIlol>alIfa_1~tbolll<lgolinoljlOtORl $ -.000 $ -450,000
-_d_ly__J"l...._~f_... $ MOO .. 200.<100 S _,000
F'to_~sv._"""""lltltl$_,Ilaft.""'" $ . I -,- J S50.(X!O
---..ib~
~_.l*l'_Mo.......,,_. $ &~!SOO .. 130.000 $ 130.000
t _lnAltoll UoIol' p"", S to~tIOO $ 1.ooo,llOll $ 1,000.000
~......~.........,rty..."'""-lle_...'" $ <IIiO.OOO 5 10.000.000 $ 100000,<lOl)
--
~""""'tIl<ljor-~"'I'l"Ilofa<llltyend_onlljI<<<nt'" $ 590,000 $ 1~.ooo.000 $ 14,ooo.il<lO
IOO"""l> ~ E6<lulion Contot $ 8lt,<lOl) 5 1,750.000 S 1.150.000
1OO"""l>~...w_....IleIdnd.flWorMo_ 5 m.ooo s 20<1._
""""""'CM<Sl_fln"'no_O<IIl.~"'_IY_ $ l5,llOO,llOO $ MOO,OOO
~p. ~Jor~nity~Y&tk:-t:e(\fe,.to ..w.SarM.CkIRt $ 14.600,000 $ 14.000,000
IO<Mfop >lowe1.da_ $
r,::,1iIIl_$oIdI,Ewe- """,mot<Ily-by ~J.'lll2diag $ 10,000,000 $ 10:ttlOOfOO()
_Co__
1Ot-" _ ....A04...... .. .
IOtMllol>-___rbool,..."." $ _.000 $ 390,000
IN(:W RECftMllON fAClUllES TOtAL $ U19,7_ $ '/'9,1"_ $ 1e,M;l~lI\l $ 24,8fl$,$OO .. at,h4,OGll $ tUl1,OQe ..
3
I 3 C
Ie
b 1m
Tab e ~ apita osts ~y 1provement TYJ Q
P</otjly I'mAt;' !'mAt;'
~,",1:4 Ao""lol6<>ft Prier<<y Prlonty 2 ~ 4 <lrowth
C...lo -Jop..,.., iA 111 Oom eo.t. S"Y<'I\<I A1fotuttfoh
tal'Al.$ V"''''Ho5 v..,tf ...10 V..'" 11 V..ro 19 V..,. 20 Pwcentctge
"'1$ loJlO
~"'Il..te Slroot 1'.", ,- .$ 5,l5OI> $ 2llO,COO $ 2llO,I)l]()
)..!.-ad. ~1'0lI< $ ~,7$O $ 1$O.COO $ 1"611,lll!O
~(;_'MIIiI...H.rI< "$ - $ 15<l,ooo $ 100~
~r"9mo.l'arl< $ 2)7m) $ l7$,Q0l> "$ m.m
<\he_ Creol Hek>ht.""""" llobifel $ l.4Ol> "$ 15,m "$ 7$,000
\lJ>i<'ariokom1>a1i< $ ~.7~ "$ t~>Ol>ll $ 1!!O.llO<l
lj,g",d.9mdL_Pa<l< $ . $ 2Ol1 000 $ 26Q.000
lj,gradoS.......pOlI< $ $ 1000,m $ 1O&,0Cl!
IpgRlde S_p.1I< $ I$O,VOl> $ 100,000
W""" lafftmy p.rI< $ too,COO $ tOO,m
"l'!&......r"''''' KlMey Peck plon $ 135oQOQ $ 1's,oOO
'-adoF.kmo""'I"Nt< $ 160(CXW $ 15Q.QOQ
~._I>umoPOll< $ '00.000 $ 1O&,00ll
_montFrittIldlyP...._ $ l00,lXlO $ 100.000
1.Ioatad. Kin~l'oll< "$ l00,Ol>ll 1$ 1O<l,ooc
(Jpgrado._1ly Pori< $ t$ll.l:lQO $ 100,<100
~_..,....atll__p.1I< $ loo.OQcl $ 1110.000
fComplolo~P8lk $ H$,OQcl $ 17$.000
~Iolo Aw1xoy I'otk $ HO,<lO<) $ 110,000
w-..... a.rkoievPark $ 1-00(000 $ 160.000
~~"'I'&!t< "$ ~.1)00 $ W,O<lO
!CoKq>lOl. _ pllfk $ 6ll,<lOll $ llO,llO<l
Qo~ 4<M1o...8Rtof CondIoRsld Pad $ 12<l.0Cl! $ 1JlO.0Cl!
~-~'''' , 8O.0Cl! $ 00.000
ompto\aMlftooPetl< $ 24,0$(> $ 24,000
Rlvldeplay-.. at 9Illl<Ioww-lP><1< $ ,O,m $ :10.000
_""" Oakn>a'" "ell< $ 60,0$(> $ 80,000
CompIoto GlIha..Parl< $ 6ll.1)OO $ 80.001)
~ 1'......... a- f'erI<.ln<:bIding pad<""'..._ $ . $ 400.1)00 $ 400;000
IOawl<>p play_. e'A$oot Park $ MOO $ ~.1)00 $ 7$.000
1R-'-~~fCafl1ac'''''''1>>Bl $ ~.OOO $ Mllll.ooo f 5oeoo.<lO<l
'OlflIOVO &:l1o ll<>"'" Poet $ ~.OOO $ 4,lioo,lll!O $ 4,SOO,OCl!
~","",A_P.f1<_plo<l $ 2,'749,000 " 2,748,JlOO
-......IWe_""p.l1<_1llon $ 000,0$(> $ 000.000
~.... Sl>on<:er _tnilloyole", $ 500;000 $ 500.000
~Wlll11"'l'll<I9o.W._I!nhe_....._ $ 6150000 $ 81$.000
-... Wl8owO~~ltll>& 18th $ :100.000 $ :lGO,OOO
l'ell<-...flfo. $ 5<lO.1)OO $ OOO,OOll
_eIlcI<la>*lDl>S<>m;fl'''''''''. "$ 4OO,Ol>ll $ <IeQ.<lOQ"
..,..__SwIlePe.kf.1aol...f'lo_ $ 20,000 $ 5,722,OOll $ 2.aGl,<lOQ" $ ~I$l.ooo
.....w...........lt8lIo__I'.l1<-.. $ 3.5<lO $ IS~,2611 $ 152.2ll<l
"l'!&moI1lUe_PoIl<F"",,___PfG" $ ~.OOO $ 7OO,lll!O $ 7O<l,0Cl!
~8ilInu~.IAll,,"_pO<l< $ - $ 2&QjQOO $ 2Ol1,00ll
-.... Alb>n.~ C..... c...tfatb,..~ ...."...tlc>A,af\CI $ 1l,4ll1 $ S.OOO.QOQ $ 5,00ll,JlOO
- ....."'.. 1>0..,... .
~9 AAotl&af<,or P~t~itbitWASPo.v.~~n.f1d $ rs,OCl! $ MH,m $ 1.83:1.000 $ 1,!32,COO
l!AlW _PIon
.-- Rll.""l"M<.moot..ploM $ 800.0011 $ EOO,OOO
"""'ft<l -....Iloln (;.Alln<flllty c._lOt $ 7>t,lll!O $ 2,ooo,<lO<l $ 2.000.000
pgredeOacnpboRc."",,>tlllt_ '*"lOr $ 77,lll!O $ 2,600.0Cl! $ 21G&)~OOO:
-lop podl!ngon<t.OOQt"'~od 'Bad< 8" _Rlbboft 10ll! $ 1...11>> $ 4OO,OO<l $ -,<lO<l
--
~.. paI\lon af ~ I'<>ol"")iller _d... $ 7$.000 I 4.000;000 $ 4.000,m
~___Ir>ge.IL_"-dP8lk $ 7.700 I 944.000 I !l44,1)l]()
,-"""1.,,,,1$ _ et WHS ill po>t,.".hlf> wlth _ISl<lleo1 $ 1001000 $ 100,000
lllol<Ic:tfi;!
~....,."" p..... ofRiverH.... Moolorl'fo_. $ 1,200.000 $ 1.200,00ll
f"'.!'I"- SMJ_ pieri, ~ podl!ngon<t erreos.O<O$O I 2q6,500 $ 208,5<lO
~....., ~~
""",vo(Mh\)on~ $ 2$0.000 $ 2S1l,m
lO'<fcleror"'Plo_.' 8)'RIhoOO..._ _il>p'~wllh I 1.000,<lOll $ 1,000.000
J
mo_l_lllU>1<m",_p-. $ 1,I)l](),OOO $ 1.OOll,OOO
_lIrtgatio"at to....- 1'..... $ _.COO $ 3OO,lXlO
"" SIooIObOJllI'.'" $ 8oo.COO $ 5OO,lXlO
... ""'.perl".._.... I $ 840.000 $ 04ll,lll!O
0._1' _..... """y............llon_'" $ I 200.000 $ .2Oll,lll!O
_10 $ S!IO,OOO $ 500.000
....""'. pel1< lnlgetkm.y.Rom$ I 1.000,000 $ 1,llOO,lll!O
....- pal1<lIghtlR. ._... $ $00,000 $ 5OO,OO<l
.-I8M1o_,_ill9"'wrIo<ll1& $ 1.000.000 $ 1,OO<l,lll!O
"plemem"~I_...n1 plam $ 1.ooo,OOll I 1,1)l]().QOQ
thlPf:\OVE EXISTING FMIUTle TOTAl.. f 474,m 1 S5,t43,1$e I 1I,U94,160 $ 2M$~,IlQO $ ',)$l,S$8 $ 3,m,008 $ -
4
T bk! 3 C
Ie t byl
a : apita os s mprt)venwnt Type
I'riol'il>' I'riol'lly l'rio.lly
MaJnt~. Ao"",*,l1o,, l'riGrily l'riorily 2 ~ ~ G.oWth
eOOl. OllWl~ 1A tII -CoN" eootls llOfond An_II""
TOTAt.a Y_11<>5 Y....~I<>W VUC'$11 'r-.c'$19 Y_20 P.N:lH'i~~
to1S to 20
"""""" _"10 f'rhHIdty & I>olfOlty"Pa<l\O ~e;.. ~on lAoI' 0) $ . . 1$0.400 I 1$O,@
~"" ....... fa KlnGald """ _. Pa<l\O.~S.. ~. on Map OJ $ . $ llW,COO I 1$0,000
1PoW'"'"'''''''' ""pro"""""," bl_t ..ijl1lb<lm..d ""rit.-...d< $ 100,<100 $ l00,<IOQ
(Solo 112 .. Mop 31
~p _lmp<o..........lo...",. thlt..igld>ol!.ood(Soe as $ 25,_ S $li,_
ion...."3)
i""P">ve-..fa 1'.."" Klo""y, ~_""" S& (&oe $7 OIl '""P . 1ilMOO $ 150,000
~"
_ve _1o_endtBOR>! HiltP~~. $1 on Map 3) $ 15ll.OOO $ 150._
__1o_POII<(S.oS3<>nMal>3l . 150;000 $ 15O,llOO .
__I<> 7_1'011< ($eo SSonMo1>3) $ 15O;<IOQ $ l~llOO "
_ _I<> eJCloliKe por1<${$o<IllS.. Map:ij . 100,000 $ 100,000
'PlOV'I......l<> eJCloliKe p_ ($o<IllO.. Map 31 . 100,<IOQ $ 100,000
_.....o"'$k8<o'Flotd.(&oeWllO<lMop3) . 100,llOO $ 100,000
EMon~......'" 11.._ ~ _ tBnet>_ (&oeW6 on Map~) $ 1<10,0<10 $ 1<10.000
'-ve _yl<> $Mtdon($o. ~... Map 3) $ loo,1lOO $ 1<10.000
1€A/wInoO........1o C_Pe<I<.\l108W1... Mal> 3) $ 50.000 S 50,000
~""""andJl"ll<logalc.IY_~ l'OII<($oe m.. . 100,<100 . $ 100,<100
3)
p;-... _10 ~_.n<l_!Pild(($nWlland $ 1W,()OO $ tQO,OOO
Wl0....Mop~
r- - _10 l3h<Itd>llISpoAo POll< rs.. WCol 0" Map 3) $ 100.000 $ 100.000
r- _ ......10 DoJo.mont Perit(Soowt...l>lop 3) $ 1QO.ooo $ 1QO.ooo
!llepI... POd_~. lOt _. Peric. add __ OrId\lO.where . 500,01>> $ llOO,OOll
i-od .
"....... ........_ e...ol< Groo_ oM Fom Rldgo $ 1$0.01>> $ Illll,OOO
I-...u.tnu.. ~e-1<....
10-1o. -~_.po<1c<, mOlds.,., $ 2,700 S 32.000 $ 32,000
."W15W.,..,-_"_
~ __din.. _ bllolpolh 10 riolQ6IInO and peoffo =>llrell $ 2,roo $ ~.<IOO .$ 200.000
~.lNld ""'~W1IIomelO..IWo__....
~po<Ie_.~tolok___t
!B-P6Ik, $Mol _._ _ $yetORI lolCdudlns!9*<I_ $ $.-400 $ 1.400,000 $ f.4<1O.llOO
_a1tlllAlllllIlllnl
--_.-- $ - "$ a<IOAOO $ 3<10,<100 .
... lleIlaPAodola....._bII<o_ $ 1,l\Oll $ 3,5~.ooo $ 3.S9O,OOO
~~l'Qll~S~... $ - J 3OO,OOll $ 3<10.000
~AD.\~ $ . $ 2CO,llOO $ 2C<t.COO
__1l0)l0l"'_1o"'_~~ $ l00,OOll $ lllO.OOll
__aooa_to..~natRta:'nl$CAA'Qft.~ $ 100.000 $ 100._
DowIep~""_._iRIplO_nIs __, $ ~,<IOO $ -4OO,<IOQ
_c!o..______~_
___iRIplO_ntsalo.b1'en<l> $ 1QO,O<IO $ 100.<100
:::!"" -.. "",- ooAl>OdWity nolt!>.nd _10 Sorllo 0Ia... $ 400,<100 $ ~OO.OOO
_iMPROVEMeNTS TOTAL , ft,3GO $ $.1'47'- $ UUM4 J 1,ooo,aeo $ 2,11t,$04 $ 75$,8ll4 $ -
G U TOTAL J;2.!Js,$42 J a,u.70n~ ~~ SK.9$J 400 $St.A5.QOll JU-"G.ooo m,lm,llOt
5
Table 4: Nl>n..capital Costs
by Program Area
COST ESI!f\MTE
Recreation Programs
Reg,
Staffing
(number)
Annuat Staffing .
Reg & Temp
(cost)
Other
Provide 1 !amity program In each pfannlng district annuany (A5)
Expand community center hrs of operation to Mon--$at; minimum 12 open
hrs each day (M) .
Provide 1 sfgnfficant Special event (fur aU ages) in each planning area per
ear (AS)
Add .5 FTE Community gardGn coordinator (AS)
$ 1,200 $
6.000
$
196,000 $ 25.000
MOO
Increase afterschool programs (Includlng outdoor programs) (A 19, A20.
)
2.0 FTE $
495,800
$
85,200
rovide 2 recreation leaders for affordable. outdoor programs (A22. A23)
Increase outdoor program equiPf11ent & storage (vehtcles,boats, .
snowsf'loe$ etc) (A23)
2.0 FTE $
124.000
SPEC!ALlZED RECREATION
$ 7MOO
ProvIde ftmdfor inclusion sUWOrt (A27)
er a traintag progmm for volunteers and temp staff to support inclusion
(A2?)
ATHLETICS
Hire a facility COOroinator for City/School District outdoor facilities (A29)
.5 FTE $
47,000
AQUA TICS
Provide 1 open gym pr~1ll pet p1annlng area each year (A29)
$
6,000
Provide a 2 week..Jong swim program for all3rd graders in each planning
area (A33)
ProvidG 1 seniorladultfilness program at each pool In !he pli:mnlng area
(A15)
Expand weekend hours at Echo Hollow and Sheldon Pools (A6)
Provide one free competetlve aquatic program at each pool annually (M3,
A44)
$
$ 60,000
155,000 $ 3,000 $ 94,000
18,000'
$ 5.000
2.0 FTE $
Table 4: Non..capitat Costs
by Program Area (continued)
COST ESTIMATE
Stafflllg
(Number}
Materials
Other
ase operations funding for Sheldon Community Center and Pool 2.0 FTE $ 225,000 $ 30,000
Provide Of)el'lltioos fundtng fOf an aquatics/community center In Willow
Creek 8.0 FTE $ 1,077.000 $ 137,000
Expand staffing for Echo Hollow Pool 1.5FTE $ 141,000 $ 19,000
Expand staffing at Campbell Center tOf a fitness center 1.0 FTE $ 92.500 $ 15,000 $ 75,000
AQUATIC F/\CILlTiES
Community Facilities
Develop. a feasiblllty study fOf new facllities (2} (C9)
$
100,000
Develop a p1~ to decommission wading pools (6 sites) (C11)
30,000
$
$
25,000
150,000
Hiflll amarketlng director for LRC$ (145}
evelop trail system maps for Amazon, Ridgeline, and Riverfront trails
151)
Add 1/2 FTE for Patl<s &Reereation central Information clearinghouse
(154)
$
30,000
PUBLIC iNVOLVEMENT
Develop/administer joint POSItRCS communlty surveys (164) $20.000
TOTALS 25.5 fTE $3.116.300 $465,200 $969,200
.5 FTE $
41,000
i ;:
~~i
~~.~
fii
~~1
~it
i ~
I,Q
t:
i
il
="!
,e'"
. ~ i ~
Ii i ~ J ~ I
Q.s:;: ~h I
!! ] J f f I
~; JI$J G
;B
I III'
t 11 Ii
! IJ t(
11 lillffJjl
fl Illl'! jdtlljlilj
HlHhli 'J"II. fllHiI
fllllllll .flt<$.=:.~4
.~H
'Hi.;:.-----:
I
j
t
f
~j i~"lj
!J~ljdJlf
ffliffJjtf
~fu lbU
dn.
t!:l
'Ut
11111
,/
/~'-
i
~
l~l
cI J.I
Ja" Ii s.'
~ ~.a
~Ott
~."l:J ~
c ~ I;
~ .~
f.Q
!
if
c::;c
Ii ~
."i ,.. 2
~ e l ~,
c.~1\J ~
o ;>
t!:.= -,
-gZ-
JUC>
'Ofl
i
i~
i 11 $!
i 11 Ii
€ lot at
~ ~ i
If If f Iff Ilfitff!J!
I I l i J 1 ~ ~ l i Ilj t f ~f l jJ~ t j III i f
i Ii If J. n t I d. H Hi I ! fi !! I H
J II $ > " ~ 0 J 1IIIIIIIl...~.::"~"
i~ ,
· ....... //'/
.. I'/J<{
if":..,...;.
':t .
.~H
~ II
~ j if~
l di !
! 'tilt 3:
~ J iil ;
Iii
'l) :Ih"
~
() ~
';
,,"-
;:.": <: '.
;\'ff::l.......
.",,,.j... .
':'''''.':;J '.
:::~~{::.. ';
,:.':nf.
..],.....".ri...
,"..' .~.~
;::'~'IiI
"If
. ,
I; .....~., '.
j:'
~~~ "
.:.::1: .t..
", ,.;~;.,::.>:.i"._:...Illf;t.
dj
,t-~
1>05"
In
1i~1
JJJ~
. f~!
fjl~
fH~
..,!!l
fill
~J
!)IJ
Jlfi
9
.....
I
....
~.
.
.
I
.
i....
$~ ....
g~
~~!
I!b
I ;:
~.~~
~J.~
"lia
~~i
~ ~.~
~ \,J
.!
..~..I
~I
li
~
J i
t ~ ~
~ llil
f II' }
rf
,g J
-" 1
1 f
I ~
( 0..
, ..
}
j
!
1
I j
J! ~!~Ifl
flJl11ill
i III1IIII
~ f i
I I U I
1 ~ 1 ~
t ~ f)'"
l ~ t
~ ! if! l i .1. ~
ti!{H~jj!
..~~~~~Jif!l
I flUlmil
!..."=:.~<I
to::
!
~ .:3-
~:e
01:'"
i~ w
If ~ g
'1& .. N
;~ 1; ~
l~ ~
18-
='1#
II
.....
.!!
i
-
~
~
<.
~ o~
di
~n
J~ll
lj!!
Jd~
lrf
!jl~
~~jt
H.~g
U~i
n!l
nh
I
.'
=
.a =
w \:'i
s~~
~l.~
tlj
I~~
~ l ~
~ lI:'l ~
8' \oJ
\Q
Cl
(:I
:0.
~.~
~.. g)
8! ~. \:)
1J I'll:': .... ~
",~:f~
&.a. ~
EVI ~
iJ.
11
~
.1
I
j -
] I 1,1 i
! 11 ..~
! ~., . i
f - 1 I 1..fJljil
lt Iii ~ }liiJft!
ljPtf h !!lhl i !q!!HfIJ
1 dnlli UWI.HPJHWdW
~ II S) ,1} D f III1IIII ..."==.~.
,!
:I
...
~
I.
<(
~oj
IIH
in
It~1
jd't
tfH
lIt
~ji~
~c!h
U~l
!fli
iJb
Jltl
!
I ~
.i2 e: ~
~~.~
~ij
~o~
~ '! ~
i t:f :s
~ 'oJ
14.1
Cl.\
If
i'PJ
6!1 ln
"0;: '" ~
Ul~
"0<11
=8-
8'1
!to
~ ~ i
~ } l
. 1 ~ J ~
~~lilf
"\'S ~I ~ ~ i ~ ~
C ~~!~:i:i)rt!
11)
J II j .) .d 0
j t
- ti
. 1 i . U
j d J j
i t ~ ~
. ~ l~ t f f
i~ j! ~i~Iill!
fittu<~~
$:~~~~iJfJ i !!~i.flji~J
il~fll!fi !L!f~iLd!l
~ j!!i~l~g i tj<'Jf1~~l!!
f 1IIIIIIII"et&.:=.~..
. 8
-&It
d. .l.JU
Ii l~ l
.J> .U....I...U.) ~I'
'" l"i
i: 1
dl
f~"
!l,
h~'
i~Af
flU
tllr
tiJ.i
~.~ 1
llll
U,j
Hi
1'"
dll
j
~. ,
~ J
~ -2{
-""'- e ~ i
I',;
jei
&~.~
"l~
to~
Q;;"\';)a
~ 6 e
~ -:g
.!
j
Jf
~~
-i ~ 8
3! ~ c
11~ '" N
III e I gf
c. ~ ~
eVl ~
0...:::
1!
cn"l:f
CC
l;lU
Ii
~
~ ~
~ ~ l
K ~ F
"21,f!
Q)
! II} ,~
2
-~ If
1 till
i i s ~;;
! 1t if
f ~ ! i ~Ifiil"
f~ i ~ ijtJi11il{
~] ]~ ~~!Ifl ~t~~~IJi~i
It .~ilf~li~~f i 1(I~i~J~!ii
~l ill f~~l~ Ji~.f)1JJt!
} 0 f IIIIIIII J...M::.~4
... ~J!
;:~!
'"
..
~
~H
llU
l~l
!U!
1fi~
tdJ
€JU .
:!dl
lUg
U"J
nJl
1"
gill
l ~
ll~ht
JUJj1l
iUiit
~
.!!
~
>!'
~
6)
~
o \f)
,I ;;
J~~
~,~
YI
~lj
~. I::) ~
Q;;. ~ ~
5 i e
~ ~
~
.1
s::
o
4:t
II
~s
~ i 8
~~ to- N
"" <ill ft ~
g.x ~ ~
.t~ -,
'I:'
n;:JQ
1'1
Tin;:J
';(
t.a.t
~
~ i 1
] ~ l ~
~ f! <(
~~si~f
f F r .. ~ ~
~ ~l!~jL~
iIIJ5';:D
, I ~
} If if
1 L~ !~
t 11 If
I j j i~~!~tii
l 1! titIf~~i~f
i l ~~llf~ .; ~~'~Lqlf!{
IlltlJI~j ll'I1JIIIII
lHlllal p! illJHt
fllllllll t...~::.~.
i $
1 & J~"
n~l*i
idUfl
~
:1&
.s
.5
!
""
:r
'I
J!
...
--
dl
t-b
tii~
jJ~!
1~!~
un
fur
HU
uh
~dl
InJ
~
Jl
i
J
,
~ J
,
q) i
- t
:g
o IS)
Eugene Park Service Areas, School
Service Areas, and Unserved Residential Areas
'V Eugene City limits
~ Urban Growth Boundary
II Parks and Open Space
! Elementary Schools
C Parks Plannlng Areas
! Parl< Service Areas
" H, Overfappl09 Service Areas
/., School Serv<<;e Areas
02. Lost Service Areas due
ta to School Closure
e Residential Areas not within
W-1 1/2-mUe safe walking distance
of playground (park or school).
~
NO'I&Illber 24. 2003
::.::r-
()
l
0.5 1
. Miles
A PPel_f'Dtx (
I
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
. Residential Lands and Housing Study
Draft Site Inventory Document
I
1999
.._.--------...-~
Metropolitan
Residential Land and
Housing Study
J-anuary 1995
Sites in
Subarea 1
Bethel-Danebo
current to January 1995
Vicinity Map
Plan Designation Site Numbers
low Deosi~ 3 -11,13,14,19-24,27
(sites at 10 . acres)
~ium Density 2, 12, 17
sIres at 1 + acre)
H~ Density 1
(s es at 1+ acre)
~ed Use
( es at 1+ acre)
~'I , .wlt1\.\.:.\. ~--.
tb f=f l~ - ~
I~ r 'l~ 0 2000 Feet
. I
~ L.G , ~ JI U
I- I~ ., A
tr f-- ~ ,~
-2... f-- ~
- '---- N
r-- ... ..... I.
, ~ \f"T
-I;;: " ':.:.L:.l.
n ,~
II '~ ~
\~
~
\. '1
\::! 'm . ..1
-~fII!I[
~
......
"'g ~ r Ih
~ J ~ I I.t.. t::' J:q .. ~
- 11 I I L
I I- - ~tI fXF
tJ(~~ ~ ~1
,.- !E I I- -
~..~ d~ !\- I 0 s -
JJ -~5 ~hJ i,-",- """U W'I It f-J
m
~
t:I dl fjt) ""'II .... ./ -... -
,,- '-
~ .n--. l:: I
QYJ_ --.i-
.......'- ~.I- '-
;,-, ;
~;
ENGINEERS
PROJECT MANAGERS
PLANNERS
October 17, 2005
Eugene Planning Commission
clo Eugene Planning Department
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Planning Commission Members:
As a land use planning consultant, I support and believe in land use planning. Growth
in this area will continue to occur, and the key to managing this growth is to plan
comprehensively for this growth; provide for adequate transportation~ housing, jobs,
open space, etc. in a balanced way.
I am very disappointed and concerned because, for reasons I will not identify here, the
community has gone away from doing planning in a comprehensive manner. We have
not been looking at all of the elements that must be provided for in a community.
Long-range street! transportation needs, including bridges, sanitary sewers,
stormwater treatment, potable water supply, electrical, open space, and parks are being
looked at piece-meal (i.e., while ignoring the others). The community has been
looking at only a single aspect one at a time and are, therefore, making judgments that
this one aspect or element is more important than the other elements. In today's
enviromnent oflimited tax dollars, all of the elements must be in balance, properly
prioritized and, as the Mayor continues to correctly remind us, our planning efforts
must be sustainable.
The City of Eugene Parks, Recreation, & Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan is
the latest example of this type of disconnected planning. To add insult to injury, the
use of the title "Comprehensive Plan" in the PROS plan is a misuse ofthe use ofthe
word "comprehensive" and distorts how Oregon's Land Use Planning Law was
intended to be used. Oregon Revised Statutes 197.015(3) defines "comprehensive
plan". The definition reads as follows:
"Comprehensive plan" means a generalized, coordinated land use map
and policy statement of the governing body of a local government that
interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to
the use of lands, including but not limited to sewer and water systems,
transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, and
natural resources and air and water quality management programs.
"Comprehensive" means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic
area covered and functional and natural activities and systems
occurring in the area covered by the plan."
VOlel 541 687.J08J fAX 541.345 659') WFB JRHWEl\ CO!vi
4765 VILl!\GE FI.AZA LOOP SUITf: 201 EUGENE OREGON 07401
, "
,
.
There are three fatal flaws with the PROS Plan. They are:
· The original plan located parks and open space in disregard. to the other open
space lands owned by other government agencies and privately-owned parks
and open spaces, such as golf courses, miniature golf courses, private
ballparks, etc. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal and Guidelines (Goal #8),
entitled "Recreational Needs", clearly indicates that recreational needs include
more than just the local government, by the use of such words and terms as
"destination resort", "private enterprise\ "state and federal agency recreation
plans". The PROS plan offers no documentation of an inventory of the other
government (county, state, or federal) recreational or open space plans, nor
privately-owned recreational facilities. In fact, contrary to Oregon's planning
laws, the PROS plan overlaps Lane County's Rural Plan. Which one of these
two plans do property owners rely on?
· The original plan (maps) located parks and open space without knowing how
the surrounding land is to be used; low-density single-family versus high-
density development. It may be assumed high-density population areas should
have a larger number of park acres within or close to high-density areas to
maximize.energy conservation (walking, bicycling, short-distances for autos to
drive, etc.). Employment centers, industrial areas, while requiring some parks,
should have a lesser need for recreational acres. How did the City factor in the
City's Goal 5 Natural Resource, Scenic, Historic, and Open Space element
currently before the City into this PROS plan? Where is this analysis, and
shouldn't such an analysis be based upon locating, including the balancing of
housing and employment and goods and service needs? This PROS plan is
premature, out of phase, until the City decides its future land use and
transportation needs, inside and outside the Urban Growth Boundary. There
are planning goals, such as housing (Goal 10), public facilities including utility
needs (Goalll), transportation (Goal 12) that arejust as important as the
City's recreational needs (Goal 8).
· In an effort to correct these fatal flaws, staff has divided up the PROS plan into
smaller parts; however, this change of strategy does nothing to correct these
flaws but, simply, is an attempt to cover them up (Le., leaving out maps and
project list). This strategy is oftalking only about the goals and policies to the
Planning Commission will be difficult, ifnot impossible, to prioritize such
PROS goals and policies. The Planning Commission needs the other two
pieces (Appendix C and D) and a broader discussion of how and where the
Metro area is going to grow (i.e., impact on the area's land supply). Are the
PROS goals more important than community policing or economic
development, or low-income housing? I think not! I can almost visualize
what will happen in the future. The Planning Commission and the City
Council will be told they can talk only about the PROS goals and policies
(because that is what is before them). Then later, when more specifics are
Testimony from Larry E. Reed i RE: PROS Plan I October 17,2005 12
,..,. \.
} i#
"
.
brought back to the Planning CommissionandJ or the City COWlcil, they will
be told the goals and policies were previously adopted, and they cannot revisit
them, because what is now before them (maps and project lists) simply
implements the City's recreational goals and policies.
Please recommend to the City Council that the PROS plan be sent back to Public
Works staff(as a great vision) with direction that the Public Works staff work with
City Planning staff to review, incorporate, and coordinate this vision into the broader
land use planning programs of the City and bring back to the City COWlcil for
adoption sometime in the future.
Yours truly,
~~LU/
Larry E. Reed
Principal, Land Use Planner
Testimony from Larry E. Reed 1 RE: PROS Plan I October 17, 2005 13
< .
fI)
D::
-
C
II.;
II.
c~
.~
il- ~
I
~
Z~
a
'W I
~
2:::::
1
.....
~
ZA<
~
W
)I
o
<:)
We won about dJree..quarters our issues in our
MWMC LUBA appeals and lost. one piece that is
critical enough for us to appeal that to the court of
appeals. First let me tell you what we won. On our
appeal of the comprehensive plan and the Public Fa~
ci1ities and Services Plan (PFSP)J LUBA agreed with
us that the projects described in the comp plan and
(PFSP) must be more specific than provided by the
jurisdictions. LUBA did not say how specific the
projects had to be, but possibly provided a hint when
it said that a S10JOOO fiber optic project would pr0ba-
bly not have to be identified. LUBA remanded the
~ plan and PFSP amendments back for the juris-
dictions to redo.
We had also appealed the 2004 MWMC Facility
Plan on the grounds that it was a land use decision.
The SDC project list was included in the Facility Plan
and adopted directly by the elected officials rather
than going through the planning process. The circuit
court judge had held in our appeal of the methodology
that the Facility Plan was a generic plan that had no
relationship to the land use process. LUBA disagreed
with the circuit court's analysis and $greed with us
that the Facility Plan and the SDC project list were in
fact related to the land use process. LUBA deter-
mined that the Facility Plan and COOlp plan had to be
consistent and that projects in the Facility that had to
be included in the comp pian and PFSP could not be
constructed until they were adopted as part of the
comp plan I PFSP.
Now to the critical piece we lost LUBA held that
nothing in the statutes or adt1'linistrative rules said that
funding ordinances (such as SOCs) had to be adopted
after the comp plan amendments rather than before.
LUBA said in its opinion that it ~ more Iogi-
ad to follow the process that we advocated and that in
some cases it will be more practical to do so, but,
essentially, there is no requirement that jurisdictions
act logically or practically. The problem for us is
simple. If SDCs can be assessed and collected for
significant projects before those projects are actually
included in the comp plan, what if the projects are
never included in the comp plan and are, t;herefore.
never constructed? What happens to all of the money
that we paid to the jurisdictions- for those projects?
ENGINEERS
!~ROJECT MANAGERS
;~t
~::
No one knows.. That situation is already happening
across the state and, closer to home, in Eugene.
MarionlPolk County HBA is filing a suit against
SUvelton's water, stormwater, and. transportation
SDCs. In each. of the project lists for the respective
SDCs, Silverton has provided dollar antounts and
lOoeA. SDC assessments for "as yet unidentified pr0.-
jects." If we can be made to pay for unidentified pr0.-
jects, how do we know if they are ever constructed?
If SDCs assessed for significant projects are derived
from the comp plan I PFSP, that problem goes away.
because projects in the comp plan have to be identi.
tied with sufficient specificity and "as yet unidenti-
- fled projects" won't fly.
In Eugene, we have the same problem with the de--
veloping park SOC. I was on the mayor's committee
tbatlooked at future park projects for over two years.
The emphasis of the process was never to narrow the
list down or to examine the practicality of having
specific projects on the list. Instead, the emphasis
was always on whether there were additional projects
that should be added to the list. The current project
list totals almost a quarter-of-a Bll..LION dollars. Not
all of those projects are deemed to be SDC eligible.
but most of them are. When I would ask when the list
was going to be narrowed down to something that
was actually doable. I was consistently told that the .
project list did not need to be narrowed down because
it represented a "vision". Next month, a proposed.
comp plan amendment will go to the Eugene planning
commiAAion for a recommended adoption of the parks
plan. However, all of the actual projects that were in
the plan have been removed. At this point at least. the
intent is to provide the Eugene planning commission
with the project list as information only, but the plan.
ning commission will not be pennitted to examine the
project list to recommend that specific pr~ should
be removed or added. Instead. the planning commis~
sim will simply look at amendments to the city's
goals and policies as they relate to parks. and the ac-
tual project list will go directly to the city council for
adoption for purposes of determining SDC eligibility.
In an interesting t\vistJ the proposed comp plan
amendment expands the planning area for the Eugene
parks department into
rural Lane County.
Eugene is contending that
the planning area for its
parks department includes
. an area that extends north
of the McKenzie River.
west to include the east
shoreline of Fern Ridge
Reservoir, south to
Spencer Creek and the
town of Goshen, and east
to MQunt Pisgah. Today
Eugene has no plans to
include
PlANNERS
\'()j... f
JRH
5.~ L.;'L~(15'i~1
t1\RI( IR II P ':IIU I WE ILeUM
J .'.\
f4l
LARRY E. REED
)41.(,{i'i Ill" I
HOME BUILDERS ASSOelATION OJ: 1~4N. ~I''''U'I'V
. Gov~lIleat A1I'aita. Continuedfrom page'"
.'
.... 'Springtie)d in its planning area. but tomorrow - who knows.
, lntetestingly, at the end of September at least, Eugene is taking
the llosition that extending its planning area into rural Lane
County is essentially none of the county's business. Eugene
staff told the oounty commissions at a presentation on the parks
plan that the city was only required to permit the county to
weigh in if Eugene's park plan was in conflict with the metro
plan. Eugene staff have been told by Eugene's attorneys that
there is no conflict with the metro plan as long as Eugene does
not try to pass regulations that affect county residents.
What is the impact on county residents and businesses? One
the projectS that is currently on the list and is tentatively sched-
uled for SDC assessments is a bikepath on both sides of the Wil.
. lamette River to the confluence with the McKenzie. Property on
' both sides of the WiUamette involved in this project are owned
by Eugene Saud and Gravel, Delta Sand and Gravel, Egge Sand
and Gravel, the Wildish Company j and River Ridge Golf
Course~ All of the relevant property is outside the Eugene UGB.
Mike A1tucker has told Eugene staff and the county ,commis-
sions that Eugene Sand and Gravel does not want t? have a bike
path running through its gravel extractiouopet'ations. Seems
reasonable. Debbie Jeffiies has told Eugene staff and the county
commissions that River Ridge Golf Course is also opposed to
~e bike path project (it would go through the 1~ and 16th holes
Of the golf course). The Eugene parks plan says that purchase of
proposed park property from willing sellers ~ the pref~
method of acquisition but using the powers of enunent domam IS
~dently not ruled out.
The problem with deleting the project list ~ the land u.se
planning process is that no other good process exists for a reality
'..
check. Should th~ city ofEugeno be imposing padt ploje..is on
county residents without the county being involved? Is it practi_
cal to have a bike path traversing through gravel mining opera..
tions? Should bikers and joggers be in an area where they may
be hit by golfballs? Should golfers tee off only to find persons
fimn the bike path lounging near the green? I would guess that
the parcels owned by the gravel companies have a metro plan
designation of QuarryIMining with a zoning of Sand and
Onwel? If so,' bas any one at. the city checked to find out if
, parks are a permitted or conditional use on those parcels under
the Lane County code? The reality is that many of the practical
questions have not yet been asked, let alone answered.
Eugene staff has told me that they still see the project list as a
vision. However, a vision should be the merely the beginning of
the pl~g process, not the end. . Eugene staff told. the ~ty
commissioners that they do not want to put the projects m .the
because they would have to amend the c:omp plan if they wanted
to c4ange the projects or tweak them. Probably not for tweak-
mg, but certainly if. they want to make significantly change the
projects. That is tile whole point of the land use planuing pr0c-
ess. It is to have the cooununity progress &om the vision to the
practical. The planning process ends when the community de-
cides what parks and projects it actually intends to acquire and
construct and puts them in the comp plan. Just about everyone
agrees that Eugene is not going to do $242 million in park pr0-
jects in the next 20 years. Our issue is that Eugene wants to
adopt the list for SDC purposes and begin to collect those SDCs
even though they have made no decisions about what projects
are actually going to happen. Should we have to pay upfront for
part of the cost of acquiring 1000 acres to build a bike path to
Fern Ridge before the actual decision to build that bike path has
been made? We don't think so.
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, ContinfU/d,[rom Page 5 i :
. ,
That is the issue that we are taking to the court of appeals. Can i i
the jurisdictions adopt a list of significant projects for pmposes of i:
collecting SDCs when no decision has been made through ~ i
land use process to actually build the projects and when no stg- E
nificant projects can be built until they g~ thro'fP ~e ~d ~e i
process? I am not suggesting that MWMC s project list 18 a WISh :.
list; it's not. We may disagree on whether we should spend m~e i
'money fixing leaky pipes versus simply ~ding. ~ capacity E
of the treatment fuci1ity. but that is a policy deciSion for the !
elected officials to make. However, MWMC has. put forth ~e i
argument in the courts that ~~ (and therefore any other Jll- i.
risdiaion) can develop a project list for purposes of SD~s ~ i:
collect those SDCs before the decision to build the proJ~ IS E ~
made, because the actual decision to build significant projects, E:
according to LUBA. occurs only through the comp plan I PFSP i:
amendment process. It is that position of MWMC that we are . i '
challenging. LUBA appeals are fast tracked and we should have ~.
a decision before the end of the year. ~ :
September football is over, so I guess fall is officially here. Go ~'
Ducks 1 .... ....... ................... ........................ _.... ............l
.... ......... ..... ........
ON THE LEVEL NEWSLETTER - October, 2005
Continued on Page 8
We like it here in Lane County. It's a good
,place to be. Not just because our job is here.
but because our home is here. Like you. we
want to have a positive impact on our com-
munity. That's why we recommend using the
highest-efrtciency natural gas appliances
available. The higher t~e !!fficiency, tbe
more energy (and money) is saved. And that's
a positive impact on eveJYOne. For more
information in Eugene caJl342-5661.
e
~iilg.c~MI snMCES
OCT 1 7 2005
744 E~~1lA
AssOCl.ation of REALTOR&
October 11, 2005
TO: Eugene Planning Commission
RE: The Eugene Parks and Recreation and Open Spaces Comprehensive Plan (PROS Plan)
The Eugene Association of REAL TORS@ strongly advocate for healthy Parks and Recreation
facilities and programs that enhance the quality of life within a community. The Eugene Parks
and Recreation and Open Spaces Comprehensive Plan is a plan that will enhance the quality of
life for Eugene residents. As a community plans for growth the planning for parks and
recreation and open spaces must be included to assure the resident taxpayers that their quality of
life is being addressed. Plamung for transportation, utilities, public safety, housing and
economic development are the priority considerations for a communities quality of life with
social and environmental considerations closely associated and integrated. Comprehensive
planning includes all of these important components and it includes an opportunity for the
citizens to contribute their comments about the plan which they will be a recipient of and help
pay for.
No matter how well the PROS Plan has been prepared there are some questions left dangling:
· Why is the PROS Plan, property acquisition proposal, not a part of the state required
comprehensive planning process which addresses land needs for housing, commercial
and industrial development, transportation, utilities, and parks and open spaces?
· Acquisition of new properties, in Appendix B, estimate a need, for 2005, for over 1300
acres. Where will these acres come from within the UGH?
· Wouldn't more property for parks and open spaces witrun the present UGH reduce the
needed inventory for residential, commercial and industrial development even more?
· Where will the property come from that is needed per 1000 population if the UGB is not
expanded?
· Acquisition of property is expensive whenever it is done, and the maintenance and
administration needs for the extended programs are expensive. Wouldn't it be easier if it
was a part of the overall comprehensive plan that would possibly make room for tax
paying properties also?
With these and other questions answered and appropriately addressed the PROS Comprehensive
Plan would be acceptable and possibly affordable.
Contact:
Jim Welsh, Government Affairs Director
Eugene Association of REAL TORS@
541-935-1504 Office
541-935-3932 Fax
541-554-8043 Cell
idwelshco@rnsn.com
~ ';:":.l,
EUJENE S\ND&GRAVEL 1l'K:
P.O. BOX 1067 EUGENE, OREGON 9744h (541)~
3000 08. TA HWY. NORTH. FAX (541) 6834794
October 11, 2005
City of Eugene Planning Commission
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Re: Eugene Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan
(PROS) .
Dear Planning Commission Members:
As an affected property owner I have concerns surrounding this 1f4
billion dollar plan. PROS reachesfar beyond the City of Eugene, beyond
the UGB and even beyond the Metro Plan. Its impacts will most certainly
change transportation planning and our buildable land inventory long
into the future. The proposed plan significantly amends the 1989
Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan and the plan alters the Rivers to
Ridges plan. It is a plan bearing considerable impact and requiring
serious consideration.
Back in March of 2003 this Commission unanimously endorsed the
Rivers to Ridges Plan. City staff has subsequently described the PROS
Plan as being consistent with Rivers to Ridges. I would like to point out
some serious inconsistencies with that statement:
1. PROS removes the important specific Rivers to Ridge criteria of
voluntary participation by property owners. In fact, I was told at a
public workshop that if property owners were unwilling to voluntarily
sell, there were "other ways", specifically condemnation, for the public
to acquire the desired property. Rivers to Ridges is based on a
"voluntary" participation requirement, PROS on the other hand is
pervasively silent to this fundamental value and sets up the
framework for the City to be in the condemnation business. City staff
has been unwilling to include "voluntary participation" as criteria in
the PROS plan.
2. Secondly this PROS plan removes all project descriptions contained in
the Rivers to Ridges Study. There are over $250 million dollars of
OUR GOAL...TO BE THE PREMIER SUPPLIER OF PRODUCTS AND SERVICE IN OUR INDUSTRY
PRE-MIXEO CONCRlrrE . CPlUSHED ROCK. SAND a GRAVEL. LOAM' ASl"HALT PAYING - SINCE 1900
...
. -....
.
City of Eugene Planning Commission
October 11, 2005
Page 2 of 2
projects, many pages of comprehensive plan maps, lists of capital
priority projects, details of maintenance costs, and all are missing
from the PROS plan as presented. In fact today I couldn't even find
the PROS plan on the City's website.
This PROS plan is a major policy change from the Rivers to Ridges
plan which was endorsed by unanimous consent in March of 2003.
PROS is a significant amendment to the 1989 Parks plan and PROS has
failed to prove a need. PROS reaches far beyond the City's boundaries
stretching beyond the UBG and beyond the boundaries of the Metro
Plan. PROS has significant financial impacts in the 1/4 Billion dollar
range. PROS has serious potential impacts on our area's buildable land
inventories and on transportation planning requirements and goals. But
most importantly, the voluntary participation requirement contained in
Rivers to Ridges has been removed. This PROS draft plan positions the
City to be in the condemnation business.
I ask for your careful consideration of this plan as it moves forward
and that you reinstate the voluntary participation requirement as
originally contained in the Rivers to Ridges plan.
JEY ~ours,
Mike Alltucker-President
10/11/05
Eugene Planning Commission
c/o Carolyn Weiss
City of Eugene
Planning Division
99 W. 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
October 11, 2005
Re: Charles Biggs' Opposition to the code amendments and refinement plan amendments:
Eugene Parks Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan (PROS) ( File
Number CA 05-2, RA 05-1
Eugene Planning Commission members,
The idea that a Comprehensive Plan can be adopted piece meal and given testimony in
said fashion is very hard to understand. How can the public speak to a plan as a whole
without reference to the pieces that are the ultimate objectives of said plan? To not be
able to address the proposed projects and priorities to the strategies, actions, and
management of the plan is counter productive. I object to splitting and dividing the
Comprehensive Plan for Park and Recreation and Open Space into separate and different
hearings andlor decision making processes.
Gravel mining companies have literally reaped the benefits of Willamette Greenway and
have virtually excluded all public access and enjoyment for long enough. The (Chapter
IV 1-22) wording in the PROS Plan is too restrictive.
There has been a long-term (mid 1970's Eugene Bicycle Master Plan) bicycle
transportation and parks goal to extend the Willamette Greenway Bicycle System
northward to Junction City and to loop to the east at the confluence of the McKenzie
River to Co burg Road and beyond. Currently there are modest efforts that are community
supported-Santa Clara Community Organization, Convention & Visitors Association of
Lane County Oregon (CV ALCO), and Greater Eugene Areas Riders (GEAR) (See
attachments) which may be halted or delayed to the point of uselessness, due to the
proximity to Delta Sand & Gravel operating gravel mine.
More ambitious similar type of bikeway system projects (#699 and #551) have been
adopted regionally in the "2004 Regional Transportation Plan's" "Illustrative Bikeway
System Projects" map (See attachment). General support of these projects can be seen in
the (917/2004 to Diane Bishop) letter from CV ALCO, which states "the riverbank trails
are the "crown jewels" to a well connected and popular bicycling network for visitors an
residents alike". Likewise in the same letter, last paragraph states, " The riverbank trail
system is an important destination in the Eugene and Springfield area and any extension
or improvement will only make it more desirable".
Page 1 of3
10/11/05
The broader community supports plans to gain meaningful use of that portion of the
Willamette River Greenway for bicyclist, recreationist, commuters, tourism, boaters, and
naturalists.
I support Chapter IV E-16, but language in Chapter IV 1-22 is counter-productive in
reaching the goal of extending the Greenway Bicycle System. Placing a restriction of
only addressing the matter when gravel operations have ceased, is not necessary; as there
is a well utilized bike path along Eugene Sand & Gravers (directly across on the eastside
of the Willamette River) southern property line without cause for concern.
Delta Sand and Gravel could create a phase residential planned unit development (POD)
without having to connect to the Greenway bike path system or could choose to privatize
a trail system within the proposed POD. This is a pending reality being played out in the
Timberline Hills PUD where connection to the City's Park and Recreation Open Space
Ridgeline Trail system has been rebuffed by the developer.
This is a metropolitan bikeway system and as such its input and development should be
based on broad community input and not just primary stakeholder as referenced in the
PROS Plan.
Goal 5 implications and State Sensitive Species not adequately addressed by PROS plan.
The needs of plants and animals have been subjugated to that of human needs and
priorities.
Performance tracking of "thriving natural areas" have not sufficiently been addressed by
PROS Plan.
Park type per population statistical information should not be used as a planning tool
because the base assumption that there exists a uniform: population base; population
density base; land-use base; geographic land-form base, is faulty.
One example of this is, community park distribution should not run counter to City
Council Planning Goals to manage growth by use of Nodal land-use distribution. To
place a community park within a node zone that draws automobile traffic to the area by
promoting itself as a regional sports complex, erodes the livability of a Node, and the
overall likelihood success of the Node or the conceptual idea of Nodes as a way of
dealing with growth by densification.
I can not support a plan that further the notion that reclassification of a Neighborhood
Park "Striker Field" to a Community Park without a public meeting notice in the City's
Public Meetings calendar or Newspaper does not demonstrate open and transparent
community involvement. To meet only with stakeholders in a "workshop" or neighbor
home association is counter productive to city community planning efforts. All park
Page 2 of3
10/11/05
planning efforts should be as inclusive and broad as possible. A "collaborative approach"
should be used throughout the plan instead of partnerships and stakeholder groups.
Respectfully,
t'1 /.
L~/\.4VL/'t-"c;J--..
Charles Biggs
540 Antelope Way, Eugene, OR 97401
I~
P.S. I would like to have the record remain open until such time that projects, costs,
priorities verses the strategies, goals, objective, visions, perfonllance measures of the
PROS Plan can be discussed together.
Page 3 of3
c
o
~
Cl>
fI)
q)
q)
E
()
iii
(J
~
. , ,
.
.
~~j}tlt! qcU3&~ QCejlt:ffiltJ!1J~;!} (!f)l\49~j}3Ja1E1J$Jl
t$t~bH5fJtb
1977
..
To: Diane Bishop .
Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinator
City of Eugene
. 858 Pearl St., 3rd floor
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Ms. Bishop:
. At. our. September 2nd meeting the Santa Oara Community Organization
reviewed your proposal for a federally funded project that would ~tend the bike
path along the river under the Belt line bridge to better connect Santa Oara to the
. bike path system. Our discussion focussed on the dangers of using the bike lane on
River Road to try to get to the bike path. River Road has become one of the busiest
thoroughfares in the City and the proposition of trying to negotiate the River Road
and Belt Line intersection has become more than frightening. The result is that
only the most daring in Santa Oara will use bicycles to try to get to points south.
The Santa Clara Community Organization supports your efforts to connect
the riverbank bicycle trail to Beaver Street and Hunsaker in Santa Oara by
construction of a Division/River Avenue Bikeway and believe it to be a necessary
addition to alleviate the overworked transportation corridors to Santa Oara.
Sincerel y,
~~
Lee Hunsaker
president, Santa Clara
Community Organization
Letter of support for the
WEST BANK TRAIL EXTENSION,
formerly called Division/River
Avenue Bikeway.
a local boiuin
gobernme.nt
,: , ", '\
. .,
ClAtCO ,
115 W 8th Ste 190
f'O BOll 10286
Eugene OR 97440
September 7, 2004
:COflvenlion &' ,
Visitors Associetion of
'Lane' ,"
~:~c?~
Phone:
(54)} 484-5307
US&~:
18001547-5445
Fax;
(54113.43-6335
f.moj\;
~.or9
Visiltt:meCounty.org
Diane Bishop
Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinator
858 Pearl Street
Eugene OR 97401
Dear Dione,
I am pleased to offer this lefter suppOrting the p~oposed project that will link the Eugene
riverbank trail system safely with favorite cycling roads north of Beldine Highway.
Lane County has a long history as a cycling destination and Eugene continues to be recognized
as one of the best cycling cities in America. This is due in large part to the vision that created
,.some of the first paved cycling trails in the country, right here in Eugene and Springfield. And in
fact, the riverbank trails are the "crown jewels" to a welkonnected and popular bicycling
network for visitors and residents alike.
CV Alea has promoted mountain biking, road touring, cycling events and bicycle manufacturers
for more than 15 years. One of the first cycling loops, complete with its own popular brochure,
was a route from Eugene to Salem and back connecting the riverbank trail system to River Road
on the way to Junction City and beyond. We continue to promote this loop and appreciate the
added safety that this proposed connection under Beltline would alfow. '
The riverbank trail system is an important destination in the Eugen~ and Springfield area and
any extension or improvement will only make it more desirable. I encourage ODOT and FHW A
to fund this project.
, Sincerely,
~ \~~0
Natalie Inouye
Vice Presidenf of Tourism Marketing
r'
Letter of support for the
WEST BANK TRAIL EXTENSION,
formerly called Division!
River Avenue Bikeway.
. to ....
tt ... '\ ""
To Whom It May Concern:
The Greater Eugene Areas Riders (GEARS) cycling club was pleased to find
that the situation at Belt Line and River Road is being addressed.
GEARs is a recreational club serving the Eugene/Springfield area. The
club's purpose is to promote bike riding as a serious recreational activity.
At the present time it is dangerous, to say the least, to travel by bike through
the River Road - Belt Line interchange. This interchange requires the
cyclist to cross five lanes of heavy traffic to get across Beltline. You can
imagine how difficult this can be for a young rider, or for someone who is
new to bike riding.
The only other close alternative to the crossing at Beltline and River Road is
to ride down River Ave., go under Beltline at the river anq come up at the
. gravel pit. This road carries a good deal of general traffic as w.eU; add
gravel trucks to this and the route becomes far from satisfactory.
An improvement in this transportation gap would greatly improve the safety
for cyclists, as well as improve the route for bike-commuters traveling into
and from downtown Eugene on a regular basis.
. GEARs-fully supports the improvements to the Division/River Avenue
Bikeway.
Yours truly,
Philip Lynch
. President, CEARS Cycling Club
Letter of support for the
WEST BANK TRAIL EXTENSION,
formerly called Division!
River Avenue Bikeway.
~......~-.-.---
m :::
'-',"
...., ~
.~- ~. :--'"
a - >.
~, c (t\ II)
"" :.::.:
2 <(l ->" ~ -
"Q5 t-.' - (l) (.,)
~ ';::, ~. ~ (l)
m ro '0'
~ t)-, '/";: '-
(ti <5 (l) c..
...
-J .~ > E
'(ti ',j:
~.:. (t\ (l)
:g ^ 10. -
:: - l/)
C) '" of:; l/) >.
() Q :;., = (I)
~
-
II
. . ?::1
: j
~
c
C>>
I:>>
C>>
-I
i - 1
~~ltt
0' 0"
~1iO:8
(l. 0 "0
i rr <ll ~
0'$&"
~ ~ ,s ~
~ ~ ~ ~
-a; -a; " "
ee 1: ~
- - 'I( w
~ ~ 8 8
I I I I
~ .i!-,
~~~." "
~ "
....... .
':,~ ' ...
,
"
I
I
~:"""';'
" .....,~, ,.
~\~.,. ~\
'\''^<~. '.~~....'
'" "t.,.' '..
. ~.
~ ,,'
- ..
' ."""" ',-,
<'~''''~
~
'j
-g
::;
c
l:O
i ~
g {5
l:O 0:::
m
~ .e
~ :J
<<
I
'\ j
<
" ...........
".. ---
.......
'"
<1l
~
<C
Iii
-g
z
-g
'"
g.
Jt
\
...
t
,
., ", .;~:.; '.
.....
,-.
...-/
..... 1
Ow
CHAPTER IV
E-10. Consider transportation requirements when planning and
deslgnlng parks and recreation facilities. and coordinate
transportation improvements with other City divisions and other
agencies, such as ODOT. lane County, and LTD.
E-11, Ensure safe crossings of busy streets to Improve access to parks
and promote use of bike and pedestrian transportation.
E-12. Partner with EWEB, ODOT, LTD, and others to use public
easements throughout the City as potential pedestrian
corridors.
E-13. Provide more access to the Wlllamette River for water-related
recreation and trail uses.
E-14. Develop programs and facUlties for water trolls and water troll
activities.
E-15. Provide additional trail access to rldgeline sltes, both to
Improve neighborhood access and to support community-
Provide additional
troll access to
ridgeline sites
Coordinate with other agencies and providers to encourage
the development of a regional traD system linking
Eugene/Springfield with Fem Ridge Reservoir, the coast, the
Cascades, and the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. Provide
bicycle and pedestrian access through agricultural areas in. f~..'
the Willow Creek, Bethel/Danebo, and Santa Clara planning i
areas of Eugene.;.;
rovlde 0 ac ate trail use.
Highlight accessibility Information and provide maps In
altemative formats whenever appropriate.
E-18. Improve security of trails. Consider methods such as:
· Ughting where appropriate;
· User education and stewardship programs;
· Community events and activities to increase visibility and
use;
· Increased maintenance to provide additional human
presence on the trails to discourage crime; and
· Additional security or volunteer patrol of trail systems,
including staffed facUlties or park hosts in remote areas.
E-19. Increase collection of data on the use of trails.
46 City of Eugene PROS Comprehensive Plan
,.
.. '
",. #' . .",
CHAPTER IV
1-19.
1-20.
1-21.
1-22.
1-16.
Ensure that park master plans ore in place and periodically
updated to allow the City to oct quickly if unanticipated
funding becomes available.
Implement parI< management plans as soon as possible
following their development through funding, volunteer
projects, or partnerships.
Develop a donation policy for use In soliciting and evaluating
donations.
Implement the Growth Management Study policy aimed at
Increasing the amount and varlety of parks and open space.
Coordinate with developers to ensure that new residents will
have access to and be adequately served by parks and open
space,
1-17.
1-18.
Work with lone Transit District other City Departments and
other public agencies to ensure safe and convenient access
to parks, open space, and recreation facilities, including
access for persons with disabllitles, bicycles. pedestrians, and
ubllc tran n. .. . ")i~],"
Work with Lone County and property owners of local gravel t.'
mining operations located north of Eugene's u~an growth .~
boundary along the Wlllamette and McKenzie Rivers, to ~
explore the recreation potential of those sites once mining r~fi
Operations are conclud .' ~J
'<let
.'.., -',,'
r land and natural open space in advance of
need to reduce land acquisition costs and to protect critical
resources.
1-24. Identify and pursue opportunltles with willing sellers as the
preferred approach when evaluating parkland and natural
open space acquisition options. Consider willingness of seller as
a key criterion when prloritlzing acquisltlon opportunities.
1.25. Protect manage, and restore ridgelines and views of scenic
resources and from scenIc viewpoints.
1-26. Ensure that the City's acquisition program provides a balance
of natural areas and developed parks for active recreation
consistent with community values.
1-27. Work with other City agencies to preserve street trees that
provide significant neighborhood character. e.g" the River
Road area.
1.28. Implement the ADA transition plan for existing facilities and
develop an ADA transition plan for parks.
Acquire parkland
. and natural open
space in advance
of need to reduce
land acquisition
costs and to protect
crItical resources
54 City of Eugene PROS Comprehensive Pion .'
.
.
, . >t.
~
.
~
October 17, 2005
Eugen&Area
Chamber of
Commerce
John Lawless, President .
Eugene Planning Commission
clo Susan Muir, Executive Director, POD
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
RE: PROS Comprehensive Plan
Dear President lawless and Planning Commissioners:
Thank you for keeping the record open from your October 11 pubUc hearing. I wanted to submit
in writing the key points I made to you at the hearing on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of
Commerce. .
I want to state upfront the Chamber believes parks, recreation and open space do make a
positive contribution to the overall quality of life of our community, including the economy. And
Eugene is certainly fortunate to have so many great attributes in our inventory of parks,
recreational facilities, and open space. .
Therefore, we don't want these comments to be interpreted as being critical of parks or of the
commitment of those who developed the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Nor are they critical of
staff. Staff made certain to reach out to us for purposes of discussing the plan. Rather, we view
the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a land use matter that deserves your attention in that context.
Although we understand why the project list has been removed from PROS and placed into a
separate plan it does make it a little more difficult for those who want to view the whole parks plan
in a comprehensive manner. Having said that, you can be certain we'll comment on the budget
and financial implications of the PROS Comprehensive Plan when the city council considers the
project list. Presently, we have many concerns about how much it will cosUo implement and
maintain the project list. And, we'll be concerned about how the projects get prioritized and paid
for relative to other pressing needs in the community.
A primary concem we have right now with the PROS Comprehensive Plan is whether or not this
can truly be a comprehensive parks plan if it doesn't take into account existing public land and
private land that provide open space and recreational opportunities. And perhaps more
importantly for your Cbnsideration as the planning commission, is this truly comprehensive
planning if PROS is not integrated with other ongoing planning activities such as Goal 5 Natural
Resources. or with future planning for infrastructure such as transportation and utilities.
tn many respects, our concerns about PROS are not unlike those which several of you raised at
your October 10 worksessiof'}. In fact, they are very similar.
1401 Willamette Street
P.O. Box 1107
Eugene OR 97440-1107
TEL: 541.484.1314
FAX: 541.484.4942
.
I . J."~
Eugene Planning Commission
PROS Comprehensive Plan
October 17, 2005
page two
For example, because there is a finite amount of land inside the Urban Growth Boundary the
Chamber believes the PROS Comprehensive Plan must be coordinated with other planning
activities that have a direct impact on the supplies of available land needed for commercial,
industrial, and residential purposes.
Even though the project list is not part of this hearing we do know the PROS Comprehensive Plan
concludes there is a "future net need" of over 1,600 acres for new parks, open space and
recreation facilities.
That raises two fundamental questions that we ask you to follow up on: First. are all these acres
intended to be found within the existing Urban Growth Boundary? And second, what is the
underlying zoning of these lands? In essence, how many of those 1,600 acres are presently in
the existing land inventory for commercial, industrial, or residential purposes?
Again, we have a finite amount of land inside the UGB and our concern about the limited
remaining supplies for commercial, industrial, and residential purposes is well documented with
you. So in addition to a potential impact of 1,600 acres, how does the public, including you and
the city council, make an informed decision on the PROS Comprehensive Plan if It is not being
measured against present day inventories of buildable lands or measured against the hundreds if
not thousands of acres that have already been removed from our inventory for other public uses
and for uses such as Goal 5 Natural Resources and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan?
Those are the type of findings and analysis we believe need to be produced before this plan can
be adopted. The standards may be laudable but the question you need to ask is whether they
are even practical given land supplies that remain inside the Urban Growth Boundary, including
land needed to fulfill the economic and housing needs found within state planning Goal 9 and
Goal 10.
In summary, the vision of the PROS Comprehensive Plan may very well be admirable. But the
plan itself has many land use implications that you cannot ignore. And they need to be
addressed during your deliberation. Especially since itdoesn't appear the city council is
scheduled to spend much time on this. (Holdlng a public hearing on December 12 and then
taking action on December 14 is a rather fast turnaround, too fast for something like this plan).
Furthermore, city council discussion on the project list is likely to be more financial in nature. Our
fear is at the end of this whole process we end up with a PROS Comprehensive Plan and a
project list adopted outside a truly "comprehensive" land use planning process. That would be
very unfortunate.
Thank you for your time and consideration of our testimony.
---
Sincerely,
~ SG~~c?lIv
Terry S. i6nnolly t1
Director of Government Affairs
."'
..
JOHN ETTER
85444 TEAGUE lOOP
EUGENE, OREGON 97405
RECEIVED
BY CITY MAN,4,GER'
OCT 1. 4 2005
October 14, 2005
Eugene Planning Commission
777 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Thank you for expressing an interest at the PROS Plan hearing on 10/11/05 for some ideas that
have evolved from a small citizen group about the architecture of the downtown area along East
8th Avenue. As you requested, I have enclosed the letter I sent to Mayor Kitty Piercy on April 27,
2005, as well as a cover letter to the City Council as the letter was shared with them.
As I expressed at the hearing, the concern is that the proposals for parks that appear in the PROS
Plan, as well as the DOVv'lltown Plan, will not be realized in optimum locations without a major
planning effort. Private enterprise almost always gets to optimum parcels first, taking away
opportunities for prime park locations. Park spaces called for in these plans, appropriately
located, could yield an architectural strength and appeal to this redeveloping area that in time
would give Eugene a new identity, possibly greater than the two buttes along the axis of our city.
Planning staff felt that the best hope for achieving this potential was through the imminent
rezoning process for this area. Planning staff also felt that to provide park space in the early
phase of this redeveloping area would amount to an invitation for a transient population to use it
in a way that would create undesirable results, discouraging development that at this moment
seems to be coming on a random first come, first served basis. The solution to these two
problems, therefore, could be aided with an interim zoning plan.
Sequentially, a master plan for the area would be created, wherein a specific vision for the future
is created, with designated park and plaza locations that would ultimately be a magnet.for the
area. A decision would be made as to what point in time the plan can realistically be achieved.
Fifty years might be a target in time. A zoning plan would be created to support that
development in 50 years. And finally, an interim zoning plan would be developed to allow land
uses and development on the ultimate park parcels where the useful life of the improvement is
acknowledged to be somewhere between, say, 15 and 40 years. More penn anent development
would not preempt for all time the achievement of the ultimate design objectives. At the point
where the critical mass is achieved to support parks and urban plazas-it should take less than 50
years to get there-public funding would need to be secured to implement or finish the plan.
~
As different professionals examine this proposal, I fear that a weak link will be found and the
idea discarded. How do other cities undertake and achieve elaborate downtown or waterfront
projects that become special public places? Through vision (the will), and exciting design,
followed by various creative funding mechanisms, and probably zoning strategies (the ways), a
design greater than anything currently on the board for this area can be implemented.
I hope that the potential for greatness here will be explored, and that a public willingness to help
it become a reality be cultivated. If those considering this become excited and gain the will to do
it, I feel sure the way can be found. I hope the ideas expressed in the attached letters can arouse a
lot of will to create a plan that would become a great source of civic pride. In 50 years people
should be able to look at the parks and open space architecture along East 8th A venue, as well as
the urban development that values the open space areas and say, "Magnificent! Those urban
planners in the first decade of this century sure got it right."
Sincerely,
rJ~Eft;r-
John Etter
Retired Parks Planner
City of Eugene Parks Planning
Attachments: Cover letter to City Council dated April 27,2005
Letter to Mayor dated April 27, 2005
ATTACHMENT C
Response to Comments and Questions from
October 10th, 2005, Work Session and
October 11th, 2005, Public Hearing
Planning Commission Questions and Requests:
1. Does the acquisition of land outside of the Urban Growth Boundary for
parks, developed or natural, qualify as an extension of urban services and
therefore require a UGB expansion?
Staff Response: The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not acquire any land,
inside or outside of the UGB, for park use. If, however, the City chooses to
acquire property for park use outside of the UGB, such acquisition would not
necessarily require a UGB expansion. Currently, the City of Eugene can, and
does, own property outside of its city limits and urban growth boundary. For
example, the Eugene Airport and many segments of the Ridgeline Park system
are located outside of the City's limits. When acquiring and developing property
that lies outside of Eugene's jurisdiction, the City is required to follow the zoning
and land use regulations of the appropriate governing jurisdictions.
When identifying parcels for park acquisition, the preference is on obtaining
properties that are in close proximity to residents, and therefore within Eugene's
UGB. However, there are some instances when it may become necessary to look
outside of the UGB. For example, it is a goal of the PROS Comprehensive Plan to
provide a variety of outdoor experiences for Eugene residents, including the
rural, natural qualities that one encounters in the Ridgeline Park system.
Additionally, there may be times when the type and size of parcels which are
sought to provide specific park services are not available within the UGB because
of previous development. Although the provision of parks, open space and
recreation services is a valuable service, it does not always trigger a UGB
expansion, as in the case of the Eugene Airport.
2. Questions related to the PROS Comprehensive Plan's effect on the buildable
lands inventory.
How does the increase from a target of 8.1 acres per thousand to 20 acres per
thousand affect the buildable lands inventory?
Will the proposed additional 1,300 acres of land come from inside the UGB?
.
.
Staff Response: The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not change the zoning,
designation or allowed uses on any properties. While the PROS Comprehensive
Plan does include strategies to provide a certain amount of park acreage per
1,000 residents and identifies the need to acquire property for park use, it does
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 1
not rezone any property for park use. Thus, the PROS Comprehensive Plan has
no effect on the buildable land inventories.
The 1989 Parks and Recreation Plan established a ratio of 8.1 acres per thousand
residents as a target level of service. Eugene's current inventory of City owned
parks and open space equals a ratio of 18 acres per thousand. The PROS
Comprehensive Plan proposes a new target of 20 acres per thousand, or 2 acres
per thousand more than currently provided (see Table B-1).
The new level of service target is documented in the Community Needs Assessment
Report, dated December 2004, and was determined through an extensive
information analysis including:
· public involvement;
· a review of local, state and national trends in sports and recreation;
· parks and open space classifications;
· a current parks and open space inventory, including evaluations of park
amenities, facilities, and natural areas;
· and a comparison analysis to other Oregon and regional communities.
The total target of 20 acres/1,OOO translates into an additional 1,300 acres of land
by year 2025. When identifying parcels for park acquisition, the preference is on
obtaining properties that are in close proximity to residents, and therefore within
Eugene's UGB. However, there are some instances when it may become
necessary to look outside of the UGB. The total level of service target is broken
down into individual park types which are described below:
· Neighborhood Parks- proposed increase of 150 acres by year 2025. An
analysis of neighborhood park service areas shows that there are between 60
and 70 separate residential areas not within a half-mile safe walking distance
of a playground. Some of these areas, however represent small geographic
areas and do not warrant the development of a neighborhood park facility. It
is estimated that roughly 37 additional neighborhood parks are needed to
serve the residential areas within the Urban Growth Boundary (see Park
Service Area Map). At an average size of 4 acres each, this would mean an
additional 150 acres of land are needed to address neighborhood park needs
by 2025. It can be assumed that most if not all of this acreage will be acquired
within the UGB.
· Community Parks- proposed increase of 60-95 acres by year 2025. An
analysis of community park service areas shows that there is only one area
within the Eugene planning area that is not being served by a community
park. This area is located in River Road/Santa Clara. The size of this future
community park may vary between 40 and 70 acres. Additionally, smaller
acquisitions totaling 20-25 acres could be added to existing community park
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 2
sites. All totaled, this would mean an additional 60-95 acres of land are
needed to address community park needs by 2025. Acquisition of this land is
preferred to take place within the UGB.
· Natural Area Parks- proposed increase of 622 acres by year 2025. While it is
difficult to ascertain the amount of land that could be included in this
category, findings and staff analysis have identified approximately 650 acres
that could be added to complete the Ridgeline Trail connections and protect
significant waterways. This level of service equals 10 acres per 1,000 which is
well within the range of other comparable communities and addresses public
demand to provide a balance of active and natural parks. An additional 622
acres are proposed for natural area parks by 2025. Although it is a
preference to purchase land within the UGB, existing development along
Eugene's southern boundary may necessitate the purchase of some lands
which are outside the UGB to make critical connections and linkages along
the Ridgeline Trail.
· Other Parkland- proposed increase of 447 acres by year 2025. This category
includes the following park types: Urban Plazas, Metropolitan Parks, Linear
Parks, and Special Use Facilities. A combined target of 6.8 acres per thousand
translates into almost 450 acres of land across all four categories. These
categories are combined to allow maximum flexibility in responding to
community needs and to take advantage of opportunities that cannot be
foreseen today. It can be assumed that additional acreage of Urban Plazas,
Metropolitan Parks, and Special Use Facilities will primarily take place within
the UGB. Additional Linear Park acreage may be focused on areas outside of
the UGB along key waterways such as Amazon Creek and the Willamette and
McKenzie Rivers.
3. Address the issue of non-city owned lands that one can reasonably assume
will remain as public open space.
· Are the Youth Sports Park facilities and land included in the inventory
analysis?
· Provide infonnation of comparable cities, and assumptions they made
regarding the inventory analysis of private versus public land.
Staff Response: There are numerous agencies and private entities which own
land within Eugene's Urban Growth Boundary and provide recreation
opportunities to Eugene residents. These providers include:
· School Districts 4J and 52;
· The University of Oregon;
· Eugene Water and Electric Board;
· Lane County;
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 3
· River Road Parks and Recreation District; and
· Privately owned recreation providers such as golf courses and tennis clubs.
There is no guarantee that lands owned by the above mentioned entities will
remain in perpetuity as public open space andj or recreation facilities. Although
these providers are part of a system which contributes to the parks, recreation
and open space services of the area, only lands which are actually owned by the
City of Eugene are included in the PROS Comprehensive Plan inventory.
The City owns and manages multiple facilities which are located on school
district properties. These facilities include athletic fields, children's play areas,
skateparks, and tennis courts. These facilities are counted in the inventory of
existing park and recreation facilities. However, the land which they are
constructed on is not owned by the City of Eugene, and is therefore not included
in the inventory.
The following agencies own land within Eugene's Urban Growth Boundary that
is protected in perpetuity as open space through funding mechanisms or
conservation easements:
· Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and
· The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
The Nature Conservancy owns 415 acres of land within Eugene's UGB which is
protected open space. While TNC does not restrict public use at this time, it does
not facilitate public use, and has the ability to restrict use in the future. The BLM
owns 742 acres of land within Eugene's UGB which is available for public use.
It is typical of Parks and Open Space planning processes to only incorporate
lands which are owned and therefore controlled by the individual jurisdiction.
The inclusion of private recreation facilities complicates the inventory of lands
and resources because the mission of a private facility owner is often different
than that of a municipality. In the case of both Willamalane Park and Recreation
District and the City of Portland, inventory acreages are limited to those lands
which are owned by the jurisdictions. School facilities are included in the facility
analysis, but the acreage is not included. This is consistent with Eugene's
methodology.
4. Can publicly owned right of ways be utilized for urban parks in the future,
and what is the level of service target for this park type?
Staff Response: The PROS Comprehensive Plan identifies two new park types,
Urban Plazas and Linear Parks. The purpose of an Urban Plaza is to provide
social gathering spaces within urban areas and contribute to neighborhood
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 4
identity. These spaces may include hard surfaces or green space. The purpose of
a Linear Park is to provide public access to trail-oriented activities. This park
type accommodates current and future bikepaths which were not well
represented in the 1989 Parks and Recreation Plan. A target level of service of 6.8
acres per thousand residents is identified for the combined park types of Urban
Plazas, Linear Parks, Metropolitan Parks, and Special Facilities. This combined
approach allows for maximum flexibility in responding to community needs and
acquisition opportunities.
There is considerable potential to utilize existing right of way for the purpose of
urban parks. Chapter IV of the PROS Comprehensive Plan includes Strategy B-
25, which encourages the development of urban plazas in settings such as
downtown commercial districts, mixed-use commercial areas, and mixed-use
neighborhood developments. Strategy B-39 encourages partnerships with
agencies that own right-of-way, such as Lane County, Oregon Department of
Transportation, Lane Transit District, Bonneville Power Administration, Eugene
Water and Electric Board, Army Corps of Engineers, and the railroads to develop
and maintain additional linear parks.
5. What authority does the City of Eugene have to look beyond its UGB and do
planning in areas beyond its jurisdiction?
Staff Response: The question implies that the City, through the adoption of the
PROS Comprehensive Plan, is attempting to exercise governmental authority
outside of the UGB. Adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not
amount to the City exercising any governmental authority outside of the UGB or
outside of the City's limits. As noted in the PROS Comprehensive Plan, the
document has no regulatory effect on land not under the City's jurisdictional
authority. The PROS Comprehensive Plan is not intended to have any legal or
regulatory effect for land located outside City limits. It is strategy/planning
document that is intended as a guide for the City as it moves forward to meet the
recreational and park needs of the City's residents.
The City of Eugene is a home rule city. The City adopted its charter pursuant to
Article XI, Section 2 of the Oregon Constitution governing home rule powers of
cities. Within the City charter, the citizens granted to the City" all powers that
the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this state expressly or
impliedly grant or allow cities . . ." As such, the City Council possesses the
legislative power to enact any ordinance that is not prohibited by the United
States Constitution or federal laws, or by the Oregon Constitution or state
statutes. Neither the constitution or statutes prohibit a city from adopting a
vision document that looks beyond its jurisdiction in an effort to address future
park and recreational needs.
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 5
6. Provide findings of the PROS Comprehensive Plan, regarding its consistency
with the Metro Plan and State land use goals.
Does the Metro Plan require private recreation facilities to be included in the
Parks and Open Space inventory?
.
Staff Response: Attached as Attachment B to the Staff Report are findings of
consistency with the Statewide planning goals and applicable Metro Plan
policies. At this stage in the process, these findings are considered a work in
progress and may change to reflect comments made during the public hearing
before the City Council andj or questions and comments from the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
The Metro Plan does not require that private recreation facilities be included in
the Parks and Open Space inventory. Policy 4 of the Parks and Recreation
Facilities Element of the Metro Plan states: "Encourage the development of
private recreation facilities." PROS Comprehensive Plan strategies A-16, A-23,
A-37, C-2, C-27, H-12, H-16 and H-17 address this Metro Plan policy.
7. Provide a comparison analysis of the verbiage in Rivers to Ridges, vs. that in
the PROS Comprehensive Plan regarding "willing seller" infonnation.
Staff Response: Rivers to Ridges, the Metropolitan Regional Parks and Open
Space Study, includes the following implementation strategy:
· "Rely on voluntary participation of property owners when acquiring land or
purchasing conservation easements. A key objective of this study is to devise
strategies that will not infringe upon the rights of property owners and will
stress voluntary participation. Most park and open space protection
programs rely on responsible negotiations with willing sellers based on
appraisals of fair market value to benefit the public's and owners' interests."
The PROS Comprehensive Plan includes the following implementation strategy:
· "1-24 Identify and pursue opportunities with willing sellers as the preferred
approach when evaluating parkland and natural open space acquisition
options. Consider willingness of seller as a key criterion when prioritizing
acquisition opportunities."
The PROS Comprehensive Plan utilizes the term "willing sellers" while Rivers to
Ridges utilizes the term "voluntary participation". Each term refers to the
concept of working with a property owner who is voluntarily willing to sell their
property. The PROS Plan uses the term "preferred approach" while Rivers to
Ridges uses the term "rely" and "stress". None of these terms are absolute
guarantees against the governing jurisdiction exercising its power of
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 6
condemnation. Both documents emphasize the benefits of working with
willing/ voluntary participation.
8. Provide a copy of survey and questionnaire questions which findings were
based upon.
Staff Response: A number of instruments were used to collect input from the
community, including:
· Community Survey
· Youth Questionnaire
· Eugene Celebration Questionnaire
· Speakers Bureau Questionnaire
· Organized Sports Questionnaire
Results and findings are described in the PROS Community Needs Assessment
Report, dated December 2004. Copies of the survey and questionnaires are
attached.
9. Provide infonnation on the West University land swap.
Staff Response: West University Park has been closed since 1995. This closure
was due to serious and constant negative activities occurring within the park.
The abutting property owners to the east who wish to redevelop their property
have recently proposed that a reconfiguration of both properties would be
mutually beneficial. This reconfiguration would include an exchange of a
portion of each parcel. At the direction of the City Manager, Parks and Open
Space Division staff has undertaken a preliminary evaluation of the proposal.
The proposal was presented at a West University Neighborhood (WUN) board
meeting on July 28, 2005, and discussed at a WUN general meeting the following
week. The WUN board passed a resolution endorsing the proposal. While
strongly opposing reopening the park in its current configuration, both the
University Small Business Association and Eugene Police have cautiously
endorsed reopening the proposed, reconfigured park. A separate meeting
organized by Parks and Open Space Division staff to gather public comment on
the proposal was held on August 25. Input from nearby property owners was
also directly solicited by mail. During the meeting, the owner presented his
proposal and a draft list conditions, and responded to a variety of questions.
Subsequently, this issue was taken to the City Council on September 28, 2005 for
decision. Council authorized the City Manager to develop and execute a
property exchange agreement. For more information on the proposed West
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 7
University Park reconfiguration, see the attached City Council Agenda Item
Summary and Council minutes, dated September 28, 2005.
10. How will the process for adoption of the PROS Projects and Priorities Plan
move forward and could a resolution without a public hearing be used to
approve projects in the future?
Staff Response: The PROS Projects and Priorities Plan identifies projects and
suggested priorities, and is based on input from thousands of Eugene residents.
By nature, the PROS Projects and Priorities Plan needs to be flexible; priorities
need to be able to shift in order to respond to funding opportunities, community
trends and needs.
An earlier draft of the PROS Comprehensive Plan included a detailed project list.
That project list was (and is) intended to comply with state statutory system
development charge (SDC) requirements set forth at ORS 223.304 and ORS
223.209. In order to preserve the necessary flexibility of the project list, the list
was separated from the PROS Comprehensive Plan and will be presented to the
City Council for adoption as part of the PROS Priorities and Projects Plan.
The PROS Priorities and Projects Plan is proposed for adoption by Council
Resolution. Although a public hearing is not legally required for this process,
one will be held. Adoption of the proposed PROS Priorities and Projects Plan
will follow the Comprehensive Plan adoption and is currently scheduled for
January, 2006. Once the separate adoption processes are complete, the PROS
Priorities and Projects Plan will be attached to the PROS Comprehensive Plan
document as an appendix. The PROS Comprehensive Plan will explicitly state
that the PROS Priorities and Projects Plan is being appended for reference
purposes only and is not being adopted as a part of the PROS Comprehensive
Plan. Prior to the final adoption of the PROS Priorities and Projects Plan by
Council resolution, City staff will include an appendix place-holder for the
document to be inserted into the PROS Comprehensive Plan after adoption.
Amendments to the PROS Priorities and Projects Plan will be made by Council
Resolution. Whether or not a public hearing is held on a proposed amendment
will be a Council decision. The project list will be required to be updated each
time the SDC methodology is updated. This process includes public hearings
and occurs approximately every five years. Another opportunity for amending
the project list may occur with the annual budget process. This process also
includes public hearings.
The types of action necessary to implement specific projects listed in the PROS
Priorities and Projects List will vary depending on the type of land to be used for
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 8
a particular park. If the implementation of a specific project requires a Metro Plan
amendment, zone change, refinement plan amendment or similar action, that
action would follow the normal land use process, including all of the required
public hearings. If, however, land for the project is already owned by the City
and has an appropriate zone, implementation of that project could occur outright
without additional public process. It should be noted however, that park
development projects typically go through an extensive public involvement
component to ensure that the proposed project is compatible with resident's
needs and desires.
Both the PROS Comprehensive Plan and the PROS Priorities and Projects Plan
are documents which are rooted in the public process. The commitment to
extensive public involvement and ensuring that the public's opinion is accurately
represented will be carried through the formal adoption process of both the
PROS Comprehensive Plan as well as the PROS Priorities and Projects Plan.
11. Explore methods for pennanently placing land into Park status.
Staff Response: Deed restrictions are the most typical method of placing a
permanent restriction on a parcel of land. In many cases where park land has
been received through a donation, or funded through a grant it is typical for a
restriction limiting future use of the property to be placed on the land due to a
requirement by either the donor or the granting agency.
While it would be possible for the City of Eugene to encumber properties that are
obtained by other means, it has not been seen as advantageous to do so. The
primary reason for this is that the same body that added the restriction could at
its discretion remove the restriction.
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 9
Public Hearing Testimony
12. Roxie Cuellar, Homebuilders Association, testimony (October 8, 2005) states
that the Home Builders Association of Lane County and the Homebuilders
Construction Company believe that the PROS Comprehensive Plan is
inconsistent with the Metro Plan in the following manners:
a) The proposed Refinement Plan proposes to expand the Metro Plan's Goal
8 planning area into lands presently included in the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan without following the required amendment process.
b) The Eugene Parks Refinement Plan's proposed park land acquisitions are
inconsistent with the Metro Plan findings and policies.
c) The Eugene Parks Refinement Plan proposed park facilities are not
included in the plan.
d) The Refinement Plan does not take recreational facilities and open space
owned by other public entities or by private parties into account.
Staff Response:
a) The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not amend the boundaries of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan).
Appendix B, Map 1 of the PROS Comprehensive Plan simply illustrates
the area that the City sees as potentially fulfilling its citizens' future park
and recreational needs. The "planning area" described in Appendix B,
Map 1 does not amount to the City expanding its jurisdictional or
regulatory authority beyond its current boundaries. A noted earlier, the
PROS Comprehensive Plan has no regulatory effect on land not under the
City's jurisdictional authority. It is a strategy j planning document that is
intended as a guide for the City as it moves forward to meet the
recreational and park needs of the City's residents. The City need not
amend the Metro Plan to adopt a plan that includes strategies for meeting
the park and recreational needs of its citizens by looking to land not
currently owned by the City or within the City's jurisdictional authority.
b) As demonstrated in Attachment B to the AIS, the PROS Comprehensive
Plan is consistent with Statewide planning Goal 9 and Goal 10.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities
throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,
welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens. The PROS Comprehensive Plan
does not have a direct impact on economic activities. It does not change
the zoning, designation or allowed uses on any properties. While the
PROS Comprehensive Plan does include strategies to provide of a certain
amount of park acreage per 1,000 residents and identifies the need to
acquire property for park use, it does not rezone any property for park
use. Thus, the PROS Comprehensive Plan has no effect on the inventories
of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the PROS Comprehensive
Plan is consistent with Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 10
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of
buildable residential land for needed housing units. The PROS
Comprehensive Plan does not have a direct impact on residential
development opportunities. The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not
change the zoning, designation or allowed uses on any properties. While
the PROS Comprehensive Plan does include strategies to provide a certain
amount of park acreage per 1,000 residents and identifies the need to
acquire property for park use, it does not rezone any property for park
use. Thus, the PROS Comprehensive Plan has no effect on the inventories
of residential lands. Therefore, the PROS Comprehensive Plan is
consistent with Goal 10.
c) The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is
the policy tool that provides a basis for decision-making in this area. On
August 23, 1982, the State acknowledged the Metro Plan as being in
compliance with statewide planning goals. The PROS Comprehensive
Plan does not amend the Metro Plan. Because the Metro Plan is this
area's acknowledged policy document, the City is already in compliance
with the state's general planning requirements. 1
The testimony states that, in order for a park plan to qualify for any
exception to statewide planning Goals 3 and 4, the plan must include
items delineated in OAR Chapter 660, Division 34. The City is not
requesting, and does not need, an exception to statewide planning Goals 3
and 4 for the adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Regarding
Goals 3 and 4, the findings of consistency (Attachment B to the AIS), state:
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to this ordinance as the PROS Comprehensive
Plan does not affect any agricultural land designation. The PROS
lWhile this testimony directs the Planillng Commission to the definition of "comprehensive
plan" in support of the assertion that the PROS Comp Plan must include specific projects,
the testimony fails to include all relevant portions of that definition. ORS 197.015(5) defines
"comprehensive plans" as follows: "(5) "Comprehensive plan" means a generalized,
coordinated land use map and policy statement of the governing body of a local government
that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands,
including but not limited to sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational
facilities, recreational facilities, and natural resources and air and water quality management
programs. "Comprehensive" means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area
covered and functional and natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by
the plan. "General nature" means a summary of policies and proposals in broad categories
and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is
"coordinated" when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and private agencies
and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible.
"Land" includes water, both surface and subsurface, and the air. "(Emphasis added).
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 11
Comprehensive Plan identifies the park and recreational needs of City
residents and sets forth strategies for meeting the identified needs. The
PROS Comprehensive Plan does not acquire, rezone or regulate any land
inside or outside the acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore,
Goal 3 is not relevant and the ordinance does not affect the area's
compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands. Goal 4 is not applicable to
this ordinance as the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not affect any forest
plan designation. The PROS Comprehensive Plan identifies the park and
recreational needs of City residents and sets forth strategies for meeting
the identified needs. The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not acquire,
rezone or regulate any land inside or outside the acknowledged urban
growth boundary. Therefore, Goal 4 is not relevant and the ordinance
does not affect the area's compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4.
Because adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan does require an
exception to Goal and Goal 4, the requirements set forth in OAR Chapter
660, Division 34 or inapplicable to this matter.
Regarding the testimony directed at the City's separate adoption of the
PROS Priorities and Projects Plan, see staff's response to Planning
Commission question 10, above.
d) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 6, above.
13. Dan Arkin testimony (October 11, 2005) states that he was a member of the
PROS committee and stressed the visionary nature of the plan. He stated that
people do not consider political boundaries when choosing recreational
activities. He emphasized that the interests of people with disabilities was well
represented throughout the planning process and the process was very inclusive.
Staff Response: No response required.
14. Mike Altucker, Eugene Sand and Gravel, testimony (October 11,2005) states
the following concerus:
a) The PROS Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with Rivers to Ridges by
removing the voluntary participation criteria as stated in Rivers to
Ridges and sets the City up to be in the condemnation business.
b) The projects, maps, capital priority projects, maintenance estimates and
other costs are removed from the PROS Comprehensive Plan.
c) PROS Plan was not available on the website.
d) PROS has serious implications to the future buildable lands inventory
and transportation planning.
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 12
e) PROS forces City parks and parks planning into lands over which it has
no jurisdiction.
Staff Response:
a) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 7, above.
b) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 10, above.
c) The PROS Comprehensive Plan and PROS Project and Priority Plan are
both available on the City's website and have been throughout the
Planning Commission process.
d) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 2, above.
e) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 5, above. Adoption
of the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not amount to the City exercising
any governmental authority outside of the UGB or outside of the City's
limits. As noted in the PROS Comprehensive Plan, the document has no
regulatory effect on land not under the City's jurisdictional authority. The
PROS Comprehensive Plan is not intended to have any legal or regulatory
effect for land located outside City limits. It is strategy j planning
document that is intended as a guide for the City as it moves forward to
meet the recreational and park needs of the City's residents.
15. Terry Connolly, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, testimony (October 17,
2005) questions the comprehensiveness of the PROS Plan for the following
reasons:
a) The inventory does not take into account all public lands and private
lands which provide open space and recreational opportunities.
b) Will all 1,600 proposed acres come from within the Urban Growth
Boundary? And what is the underlying zoning of these lands?
c) It is not being measured against present day inventories of buildable
lands or incorporate other public uses which have removed lands from the
buildable inventory such as GoalS and the West Eugene Wetlands Plan.
Staff Response:
a) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 3, above. There are
numerous agencies and private entities which own land within Eugene's
Urban Growth Boundary and provide recreation opportunities to Eugene
residents. There is no guarantee that these lands will remain in perpetuity
as public open space andj or recreation facilities. Although these
providers are part of a system which contributes to the parks, recreation
and open space services of the area, only lands which are actually owned
by the City of Eugene are included in the PROS Comprehensive Plan
inventory.
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 13
The Nature Conservancy owns 415 acres of land within Eugene's UGB
which is protected open space. While TNC does not restrict public use at
this time, it does not facilitate public use, and has the ability to restrict use
in the future. The BLM owns 742 acres of land within Eugene's UGB
which is available for public use.
b) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 2, above. To meet
the needs of residents in 2025, approximately 1,300 additional parkland
acres will be needed (as opposed to the stated in 1,600 in the question).
Table B-1 identifies the total net need for the current Eugene population
and also the projected population in 2025. The total acreage identified in
the projected 2025 population column is the total amount of parkland to
be acquired. It is not necessary to factor in the current acreage deficiency,
as that is already counted in the future acreage need total.
The PROS Plan does not identify specific parcels for acquisition. When
identifying parcels for park acquisition, the preference is on obtaining
properties that are in close proximity to residents, and therefore within
Eugene's UGB. However, there are some instances when it may become
necessary to look outside of the UGB. The underlying zoning of the
additional parkland is based on specific parcels which are not yet
identified.
c) See staff's response to Planning Commission 2, above. The PROS
Comprehensive Plan does not change the zoning, designation or allowed
uses on any properties. While the PROS Comprehensive Plan does
include strategies to provide a certain amount of park acreage per 1,000
residents and identifies the need to acquire property for park use, it does
not rezone any property for park use. Thus, the PROS Comprehensive
Plan has no effect on the buildable land inventories. City-owned lands
which are included in the West Eugene Wetlands and the Goal 5 Natural
Resource Inventory are represented in the current inventory of parks and
open space acreage.
16. Debbie Jeffries testimony (October 11,2005 and October 17,2005) states that
there she has two general areas of objection to the PROS Comprehensive Plan:
the planning area and the PROS Plan content. Several questions/ areas of
conceru include:
a) Who directed and authorized Parks' Staff to create this planning area, an
area that is outside their jurisdictional boundaries? And how can the
City Planning Commission review a document that includes area not in
their jurisdiction?
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 14
b) How can a property have a linear park identified on it when there is a
Greenway exemption on this property.
c) PROS is inconsistent with Rivers to Ridges language regarding voluntary
participation of property owners.
d) PROS does not provide a comprehensive assessment of existing parks,
recreation and open space. It omits 2500 acres of West Eugene Wetlands,
school fields, golf courses, GoalS lands and more.
e) Citizens outside the City limits were not included in the public process.
Advertising did not provide clarity that the process included property in
the Urban Transition area and beyond.
Concerus regarding the relationship of the Metro Plan to the PROS Plan include:
j) PROS uses different categories of parks and recreational facilities from
the Metro Plan.
g) PROS does not follow the detennination of adequacy criteria required in
the Metro Plan including: values of residents, location of facilities
relative to residents, specific function each park is intended to serve, the
role of private facilities in providing recreational opportunities.
h) A complete inventory of park and recreational facilities has not been
conducted. Non-City property has been excluded from the inventory,
including City owned park property at Shasta Ball Fields.
i) Private facilities are not included in the inventory, although the Metro
Plan recognizes they help meet the demand for a variety of opportunities.
Staff Response:
a) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 5, above.
b) While the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not identify specific projects it
does include a strategy to develop regional trail systems. Strategy E-16
states, "Coordinate with other agencies and providers to encourage the
development of a regional trail system linking Eugenej Springfield with
Fern Ridge Reservoir, the coast, the Cascades, and the Willamette and
McKenzie Rivers. Provide bicycle and pedestrian access through
agricultural areas in the Willow Creek, BetheljDanebo, and Santa Clara
planning areas of Eugene."
The PROS Comprehensive Plan and this specific strategy set out goals for
future parks, open space, and recreation facilities. The document is
aspirational in nature and does not imply regulatory authority. The goal
of establishing a regional trail system is a long-term vision that can be
accomplished in a number of different ways.
c) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 7, above.
d) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 3, above. City-
owned lands which are included in the West Eugene Wetlands and the
Goal 5 Natural Resource Inventory are represented in the current
inventory of parks and open space acreage.
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 15
e) Advertising for public involvement opportunities during the PROS
planning process was extensive. It included:
· Speakers Bureau presentations to 44 community groups, including
the Chamber of Commerce and Homebuilders Association
· Ads in Register Guard & Eugene Weekly
· News releases
· A Special Edition Eugene Outdoors! featuring the comprehensive
plan
· Public Meeting Calendar
· Fliers & posters
· Neighborhood Group Newsletters
· Thorough updates on our website and calendar of events
· The March Working City episode was dedicated to the comp plan
and future of POS.
Staff acknowledge that advertising did not make it explicitly clear that the
PROS planning area contains land outside Eugene's City limits and UGB.
As a result, staff have made every attempt to meet with property owners
who have expressed concern on an individual basis.
f) The Metro Plan, Parks and Recreation Facilities Element does identify
main types of parks and recreational facilities that have been developed.
It does not preclude new park types from being identified. In fact,
objective 3 encourages the development of local means to determine the
level and types of park and recreation facilities necessary to serve the
needs of residents of each jurisdiction.
g) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 2, above. The new
level of service target was determined through an extensive information
analysis including:
· public involvement;
· a review of local, state and national trends in sports and recreation;
· parks and open space classifications;
· a current parks and open space inventory, including evaluations of
park amenities, facilities, and natural areas;
· and a comparison analysis to other Oregon and regional communities.
The methodology used in the PROS Planning analysis is consistent with
that recommended in the Metro Plan.
h) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 3, above. The City
owns and manages multiple facilities which are located on school district
properties. These facilities include athletic fields, children's play areas,
skateparks, and tennis courts. These facilities are counted in the inventory
of existing park and recreation facilities. However, the land which they
are constructed on is not owned by the City of Eugene, and is therefore
not included in the inventory. This is the case with Shasta Ballfields,
which is constructed on property owned by the Bethel School District 52.
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 16
i) The Metro Plan does not require that private recreation facilities be
included in the Parks and Open Space inventory. Policy 4 of the Parks
and Recreation Facilities Element of the Metro Plan states: "Encourage the
development of private recreation facilities." PROS Comprehensive Plan
strategies A-16, A-23, A-37, C-2, C-27, H-12, H-16 and H-17 address this
Metro Plan policy.
17. Charles Biggs testimony (October 11, 2005) states that he objects to the
separation of the proposed projects and priorities from the Comprehensive Plan
because the public cannot speak to a plan without reference to the pieces that are
the ultimate objectives of that plan. He commented on two projects listed in the
Project and Priority Plan:
a) Placing a restriction of only addressing the extension of the Greenway
Bicycle System after gravel operations have ceased is not necessary.
There are well utilized bike paths along existing working gravel mines.
b) Adequate public discussion has not been initiated to support the
reclassification of a neighborhood Park to a Community Park (Striker
Fields).
Staff Response: See staff's response to Planning Commission question 10, above.
There will be an opportunity to comment on specific projects during the Council
Adoption process of the PROS Project and Priority Plan.
18. Zachary Vishanoff testimony (October 11, 2005) spoke about the
privatization of parks and sited recent actions at West University Park as an
example.
Staff Response: See staff's response to Planning Commission question 9, above.
19. John Etter testimony (October 14, 2005) states that previous park plans in
1983 and 1989 looked across political boundaries and there was no problem as
financial considerations and willing sellers kept things in check. He expressed
conceru that the plan would need assistance to make downtown open space
issues occur. An interim zoning plan is recommended.
Staff Response: The PROS Comprehensive Plan provides strategies to encourage
the development of urban plazas in settings such as the downtown area (Strategy
B-25). It does not change the zoning, designation or allowed uses on any
properties.
20. Kevin Matthews testimony (October 11, 2005) states that many different
inventory methods were used in the PROS Plan and it was confusing. He stated
that the plan should address the buildable land issue.
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 17
Staff Response: See staff's response to Planning Commission question 2, above.
21. Jim Welsh, Eugene Association of Realtors testimony (October 11, 2005)
states that the PROS Plan leaves questions unanswered, including:
a) Why is PROS Plan not a part of the state required comprehensive
planning process?
b) Where will the 1,300 additional acres of new acquisition come from
within the UGB and what is the impact on needed inventory for
development?
Staff Response:
a) The PROS Comprehensive Plan is consistent with Statewide Planning
goals. See Attachment B.
b) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 2, above.
22. Larry Reed testimony (October 17, 2005) states that the PROS Plan is not
comprehensive in nature because:
a) The inventory does not address private and other agency lands and
recreation facilities.
b) It does not take into account surrounding land use, GoalS inventory,
Scenic and Historic elements, and transportation needs.
c) Projects and Priorities need to be incorporated into the discussion to
include other community priorities.
Staff Response:
a) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 3, above.
b) The Metro Plan is the governing document that provides for
comprehensive coordination of the many services and interests of the
Metro Planning area. The PROS Comprehensive Plan is consistent with
the Metro Plan as shown by the findings in Attachment B.
c) See staff's response to Planning Commission question 10, above.
Attachment A
October 31, 2005
Page 18
ATTACHMENT D
PROS Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission Recommendations
November 8,2005
Recommend approval of the PROS Comprehensive Plan with the following
amendments.
1. Replace the first paragraph of Chapter 1, Section B of the PROS Compo Plan with the
following language from the November 8th staff report, with some modifications
allowed:
.
"When identifying parcels for park acquisition, the preference is on obtaining
properties that are in close proximity to residents, and therefore within
Eugene's UeB. However, there are some instances when it may become
necessary to look outside of the UeB. For example, it is a goal of the PROS
Comprehensive Plan to provide a variety of outdoor experiences for Eugene
residents, including the rural, natural qualities that one encounters in the
Ridgeline Park system. Additionally, there may be times when the type and
size of parcels which are sought to provide specific park services are not
available within the UeB because of previous development. Although the
provision of parks, open space and recreation services is a valuable service, it
does not always trigger a UeB expansion, as in the case of the Eugene
Airport."
.
"The question implies that the City, through the adoption of the PROS
Comprehensive Plan, is attempting to exercise governmental authority
outside of the UeB. Adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan does not
amount to the City exercising any governmental authority outside of the
UeB or outside of the City's limits. As noted in the PROS Comprehensive
Plan, the document has no regulatory effect on land not under the City's
jurisdictional authority. The PROS Comprehensive Plan is not intended to
have any legal or regulatory effect for land located outside City limits. It is
strategy/planning document that is intended as a guide for the City as it
moves forward to meet the recreational and park needs of the City's
residents."
2. Include in Chapter 1, Section B of the PROS Compo Plan the following language from
Rivers to Ridges:
· Rely on voluntary participation of property owners when acquiring
land or purchasing conservation easements. A key objective of this
study is to devise strategies that will not infringe upon the rights of
property owners and will stress voluntary participation. Most park
and open space protection programs rely on responsible negotiations
with willing sellers based on appraisals of fair market value to benefit
the public's and owners' interests.
Add a statement to Chapter 1, Section B of the PROS Comp Plan stating that
this does not preclude the City Council from exercising its condemnation
powers within the city limits.
3. Amend the PROS Comprehensive Plan to read as follows: Lands owned by
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which were purchased with Land
and Water Conservation Fund dollars, and are within the City limits
contribute to the City's open space system. As such, they should be included
in the PROS inventory of existing open space resources. Although inclusion
of this acreage may show that the Natural Area Park target is met through
year 2025, other policies may require additional acquisitions within this park
type.
4. Amend Chapter 1, Section D of the PROS Comp Plan to incorporate a broad
discussion of other parks, open space and recreation resources that exist
within the community, but are not reflected in the PROS inventory.
5. Incorporate graphic maps that are currently located in the PROS Project and
Priority Plan into the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Make textual changes to
the map and legend to allow the maps to stand alone without project
descriptions. Add a disclaimer in the legend to clarify that the map is not
intended to depict site specific projects and locations and that, if there is a
conflict between the general map in the PROS Comprehensive Plan and the
specific project maps in the PROS Project and Priority Plan, the PROS Project
and Priority Plan controls.
6. Amend Section Chapter IV, Section I to add to the PROS Comprehensive Plan
a discussion regarding the need to balance the adoption of new planning
documents with the adopted Growth Management Goals and the cumulative
effect that existing planning documents may have on the City's ability to
fulfill the Growth Management Goals.
7. Amend Section Chapter IV, Section I to include the following statement
within the plan: The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not have an impact on
the buildable lands inventories. However, future acquisition of additional
park land may have an impact on the inventories.
-c
Q)
Q)
z
-c
Q)
+-
C
a.
.0
+=
c:
<(
-c
c:
C
en
-c
...
c
-c
c:
C
+-
fn
Q)
o
c
a.
fn
c:
Q)
a.
o
~
~
...
c
c..
0 0 C"') - C"') ~
00 0
uOllDlndod ~ 0- N C"') '" --0
0: - N 0: --0
Q S~O~ pal:lafoJd 2 r...: -
~ N --0 ~ ~
w - 0- --0 00 ~
W N -
Z
.... 0- N N 0 N
w '" C"')
Z -0 ~ --0 00 ~
UOllDlndod IUaJJn:> d - ~ ~ ~
~ '" '"
- - 0 0 0
-0 --0 N
r-- - N - C"')
(uollolndod 000' l Jsd SSK)V) r--: ~ 0 N 00 0
ci ~ ci
SpJDpUDIS pasodoJd - - - - --0 N
0 0 0 ~O 0 0 0 0 ~O ~O
0 0 0 CDO 0 0 0 0 CDO CDO
q q q o.q q q q q 0.0 o.q
r-- r-- r-- - r-- r-- r-- r-- - -
(uollolndod Jsd SSJOV)
pa:lIAJas jO laAal OUIISIX3 0 r--..... r--..... C"') r-- eX) L() r-- Lt) 00
~ 0
~ ~ N q 0 ~ eX) - cO
r-- r-- 0- - 0 ~ r-- 0 --0
- -
<(
....
<( r--..... '" --0
Q CV) r--..... r--..... Lt) L() CV) r-- 0- ~
...0 r-- ~ 0 ~ r-- r--..... ~
w SaJ:lV IDI01 0: ...0 r-- ~ -
Z eX) eX) - r-- 0 '" 0
W 0 ~ 0-_ r-- L() 0 CV) 00 0-
(!) N N ...0 N r-- 0- N
r-- -
:::)
w
S>lJDd OUIISIX3 0 0 r--..... '" CV) CV) C"') 0
L() r-- N 00 r-- ...0 r-- N ~ C"')
-
laOJDl UDld auaon3 696 L ~ ~ 0 0 eX) 0 0 -
............ ............ ............ ............ cO
r-- C C N C c
oSpJDpUDIS N 0 0 0 0 0 0
en eX) ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ -
..... Vd~N :lIJOISIH c c c c c
0
0
....
z qSpJDpUDIS CV) CV) 0- 0 0 ~ CV) N
eX) ~
0 r-- ~ ~ ............ ............ r-- --q
aODJaAV uooaJO r-- r-- C C c5 CV) -
en r-- N
ii
<(
a..
~ oSI:lIJISIO L() N 0 r--..... --0
0 r-- 0 r-- -
/salll:> alqDJDdwo:> --q ~ eX) ............ r--..... q N 0:
U r-- r-- ...0 C CV) r-- ~
JOj SpJDpUDIS aODJaAV -
en en
~ en en CD
C en ~ ~ ~
a.. ~ C C "0
"0 C a.. a.. e "0
0 a.. e en C LL. C
0 >- e en e
CD e ~ CD ::s2
~ .... < N :'!::: C en
CD 0 "2 e (5 :::) ~
a. :] l2 c:: a.. e
>- .0 E 0 a. 0 a..
.... ~ 5 J2 c e c "0 CD .....
~ C) E e <(
~ "(i) .... ~ .0 .... CD CD ~ ....
e 0 e CD c a. .... 0
a.. Z U z CI) :5 ~ :::i en 0 ....
....
I
a3
Q)
.a
c
.....
en
<1J
::c
~
'm
>
co
(5 en
c <1J
<1J .~
Q3
3: 0)
<1J
00 ro
<1J u
~ ro
0)
i.L .~
13 00
<1J
'C '(3
en c
is <1J
0)
c co
0 ro
~
<1J E
t5 .g
<1J
a: <1J
oCS ::c
00 ~
~ 'm
ro >
co
a.. (5
<1J
c c en
co <1J "'C
ro Q3 ro
E 3: "'C
:m 00 c
co
:5: <1J en
~
"'C 0) ro
c i.L u
co .~
tf c E
'C 0 :::::l
en ~ c
is "S 00
0. co
C 0 (j)
0 0.
~ 0 3:
<1J 0 00
t5 0_ co
"'C
<1J 00 c
a: <1J co
oCS t5 ~
00 co ro
~ .~ 0.
ro a
a.. "'C
<1J c
~ 00 0
I 00 :s
<1J
c a. ..c
X 'C
~ <1J en
ro <1J :.c
:::::l ro Q3
I- 00 "'C
<1J- <1J '00
c ~ C c
co 0) 0 0
~ u
0 i.L ~ .8
0. "00 "S
en -E <1J 0. C
E- <1J .~ 0 JB
00 0.
<1J <1J (j) 0 0
ro a. "'C
'S 0 0.
en "'C 0_ .s
"'C- C <.9 ~
c co "'C .~
co N C 00
co <1J
;:; 0) t5 00-
0 0) 00
"'C co ~
a.. ro
c ro .~
~- <1J "'C "'C a..
<1J c "'C
ro 3: co <1J 0
00
> Q) U5 00 0
0 ..c <1J <1J ..c
U "'C U a. 0
Q3- <1J co x ..c
>. 0. <1J ..c
"'C <1J en C- O)
"S > c 'Q)
~ 0 z
0 <1J 0)
a:J 00 0. <1J ~
<1J- 00 0 ro ro
<1J "'C U
00 :;:::::; '(3
'0 '(3 c ..c <1J
a:J c co U 0.
~ co 00
<1J 0 ro <1J <1J
"'C 0) .~ "'C
:::::l en <1J a..
0 c
C3 <1J c- oo co
.~ .~ <1J
L{') 0 t5 00-
00 0) """ ~ co ~
13 <1J 00 <1J ro ro
'C ro <1J t5 0.
en u "'C :8
e :::::l <1J ro
ro C3 ~ <1J
00 .~ .~ ("') f; a
<1J <1J OJ c <1J
:;:::::; 00
U <1J 0) 0) 0 00
co co
<1J '(3 Q3 <( "'C U
c <1J <1J
::c <1J > a.. 00
co 0) <( a: co f;
ro co c Z ..c E
0.= 0 .~
E co 0) E en Qj
o E <1J 0
n? .g 0 U: 0 (5
-o.....J Z
ATTACHMENT F
PROS Comprehensive Plan
Planning Commission- Additional Communications
November 8,2005
The following comments are outside the purview of the Planning Commission's
specific charge, but will be forwarded to Council as additional communications:
1. The Planning Commission recommends that any amendments to the PROS
Project and Priority Plan include a public hearing.
2. The Planning Commission recommends that all plans and studies be looked
at in balance and within the parameters of adopted Growth Management
Goals.
3. The Planning Commission acknowledges that the PROS Comprehensive Plan
does not impact the buildable lands inventories. However, future acquisition
of additional park land may have an impact on the inventories.
ATTACHMENT G
.PUbliC Works
Parks and Open Space Division
MEMORANDUM
City of Eugene
1820 Roosevelt Boulevard
Eugene, Oregon 97402
(541 ) 682-4800
(541 ) 682-4882 FAX
INININ. ci. eugene-or. gov
Date:
September 22, 2005
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Johnny Medlin, Director, Parks and Open Space Division
Subject:
Parks, Recreation & Open Space (PROS) Comprehensive Plan and PROS Project
List Adoption Processes
The following is in response to a question from Councilor Kelly requesting information regarding the
adoption process for the PROS Comprehensive Plan and the PROS Project List. Information on the
relationship of the PROS Project List to Park SDC Methodology is also included.
I. PROS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTION PROCESS
The PROS Comprehensive Plan provides concepts, principles, goals and strategies to guide the
preservation and enhancement of Eugene's parks, recreation and open space system. Following two and a
half years and a four-part planning process, the draft PROS Comprehensive Plan is complete and City
staff is prepared to take the Plan through the formal adoption process. The Mayor's Advisory Committee,
made up of eleven community members, provided guidance and direction, which included extensive
public outreach, an in-depth analysis of the existing parks, recreation and open space system, how it rates
to other comparable cities, and the compilation of all this information into a vision for Eugene Park and
Open Space System's future.
The PROS Comprehensive Plan does not simply amend the 1989 Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan
(adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan by Council Resolution No. 4127); rather, it is a comprehensive
update to the entire 1989 plan. As such the PROS Comprehensive Plan will be presented to the City
Council as a refinement to the City's Metro Plan to be adopted in compliance with Eugene Code's Type
V procedures (EC 9.7500 - 9.7560).
In accordance with state law and EC 9.7520, the City has provided DLCD 45-day notice of the first
planning commission hearing (scheduled for October II) and has sent written notice to Lane County and
Springfield, all neighborhood groups officially recognized by the City, and all community organization
that have submitted written requests for notification. The City will publish notice of the October II
planning commission hearing at least 20 days prior to the planning commission hearing. At least seven
days prior to the public hearing, City staff will submit its staff report to the planning commission.
Following the planning commission's public hearing and the close of the record, the planning commission
will recommend to the City Council approval, approval with modifications or denial of the PROS
Comprehensive Plan. The City Council will then conduct a public hearing to consider the planning
commission's recommendation. At least 10 days prior to the Council hearing, the City will mail written
notice of the hearing to any person who provided oral or written testimony during the planning
commission hearing procedures and any person who requested notice of the planning commission's
decision.
After City Council holds a public hearing, it will be asked to take final action on the PROS
Comprehensive Plan. (That action will include written findings and conclusions.) Within five days of
Council's decision, the City will provide notice of the decision to any person who provided oral or written
testimony during the council hearing process, any person who requested notice of the decision, and
DLCD. The notice will summarize the decision and state the date of the decision.
Concurrent with the City's processing of the PROS Comprehensive Plan, the City will be processing
amendments to EC 9.8010 (listing the Eugene Parks and Recreation Plan - 1989 as an adopted plan) and
EC 9.9550 (setting forth the adopted 1989 P & R plan policies). These Chapter 9 amendments will also
be processed in accordance with the City code's Type V procedures; thus, City staff will be presenting the
City Council with one ordinance that both adopts the PROS Comprehensive Plan and also amends the
applicable code provisions.
II. PROS PROJECT LIST ADOPTION PROCESS
The Project List identifies projects and suggested priorities, and is based on input from thousands of
Eugene residents. By nature, the Project List needs to be flexible; priorities need to be able to shift in
order to respond to funding opportunities, community trends and needs.
An earlier draft of the PROS Comprehensive Plan included a detailed project list. That Project List was
(and is) intended to comply with state statutory system development charge (SDC) requirements set forth
at ORS 223.304 and ORS 223.209. In order to preserve the necessary flexibility of the Project List, the
list has been separated from the PROS Comprehensive Plan and will be presented to the Council for
adoption via resolution.
If the project list required by ORS 223.309 were to be included in the PROS Comprehensive Plan it
would, by its location in the PROS Comprehensive Plan, be adopted as a land use decision. This would
mean that the project list would be subjected to the land use plan amendment process every time the City
wanted to change the priority of a proposed project because of funding opportunities or demographic
changes. So that the City can avoid having to go through the land use process every time that it wants to
amend the Project List, the City Council will be asked to adopt the Project List in an action that is
separate from the PROS Comprehensive Plan adoption.
In an e-mail message to the City Council (and others) about the decision to separate the PROS
Comprehensive Plan and the Project List, Roxie Cuellar states, in part:
The Comprehensive plan process does typically require projects to be included.
For example, significant public facilities projects - water, sewers, stormwater,
transportation - must be included in the Comprehensive plan. We just won a
LUBA decision last week that says that the project list has to be fairly specific.
That is because the Comprehensive plan represents what the community has
actually decided to construct or acquire. It is the Comprehensive plan that
typically narrows the "vision" or wish list down to a practical list of what the
community actually anticipates will be done.
PROS Comprehensive Plan Adoption Process
Page 2
For her assertions, Ms. Cuellar relies on a recent LUBA decision that was based on Oregon
Administrative Rules (OARs) that relate only to public facilities and services plans. Because parks do not
fall within the definition of public facilities, those OARs do not control the City's adoption of the PROS
Comprehensive Plan. Contrary to Ms. Cuellar's assertion, neither LUBA's decision, nor the OARs upon
which the LUBA decision is based, require that the City include the Project List in the PROS
Comprehensive Plan. The LUBA decision and the underlying OARs are simply inapplicable to the
actions that the City Council will be asked to take, first on the PROS Comprehensive Plan, and, second,
on the Proj ect List.
The Project List is proposed for adoption by Council Resolution. Although a public hearing is not legally
required for this process, one will be held. Adoption of the proposed Project List will follow the
Comprehensive Plan adoption and is currently scheduled for January, 2006. Once the separate adoption
processes are complete, the Project List will be attached to the PROS Comprehensive Plan document as
an appendix. The PROS Comprehensive Plan will explicitly state that the Project List is being appended
for reference purposes only and is not being adopted as a part of the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Prior to
the final adoption of the Project List by Council resolution, City staff will include an appendix place-
holder for the Project List to be inserted into the PROS Comprehensive Plan after adoption.
Both the PROS Comp Plan and the Project List are documents which are rooted in the public process.
The commitment to extensive public involvement and ensuring that the public's opinion is accurately
represented will be carried through the formal adoption process of both the PROS Comprehensive Plan as
well as the Project List.
III.
RELATIONSHIP TO
METHODOLOGY
SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT
CHARGE
(SDC)
Staff is currently working with the Public Works Rates Advisory Committee to develop recommendations
for adoption of a revised parks SDC. Separate adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan and the Project
List allows for flexibility in the development of a revised parks SDC. While newly adopted or modified
SDCs must consider the costs of projects in a Project List, the SDC methodology can reflect this
consideration in a variety of ways. The Project List itself does not prescribe the form of the SDC
methodology nor the amount of SDC, rather it is a reference document considered in development of the
SDC. The SDC methodology may consider the Project List using a variety of means and may include all,
or a portion of the SDC-eligible project costs contained in the list. For example, the Council as a matter
of policy in adopting the SDC methodology may choose to utilize a subset of the projects on the project
list as the basis for the SDC. These policy issues will be considered through adoption of a modified parks
SDC, subsequent to the separate adoptions of the PROS Comprehensive Plan and the Project List, with
additional opportunity for public involvement and a public hearing on the SDC adoption.
PROS Comprehensive Plan Adoption Process
Page 3